However, I don’t see it as apocalyptic as the author would suggest. Given the importance of food and water in sustaining life, I can’t imagine how a population would stray too far from equilibrium.

Another point is that as food/water becomes scarcer, people will migrate closer to rural areas - creating the reserve effect of what we have witnessed within the last century. So I suspect we’ll be dawning our cowboy hats and blue Wranglers long before we start dueling for a bottle of Zephyrhills.

I don’t really think there is such a thing as too many people or “overpopulation.” I lived in the place with one of the highest human densities on the face of the earth (Java) and while there are tremendous challenges to that place, it’s not like people think the population should be culled.

When the population expands, the market will adjust. When too many people want cars, the price of cars goes up, pollution goes down. When too many people want property, property prices go up, and innovative three dimensional apartment complexes will go up, LOL. I mean, it’s not the end of the world although it doesn’t sound appealing to us.

We will always want what we can’t have. In the future, it may be that we most desire rolling, bucolic pastures. But at what price?

Everything will work out.

Unless there’s a nuclear holocaust. In that case, we’re really screwed.

In fact, I am almost certain there are more unaccounted-for variables that would work counter his argument than those for which he has accounted for.

It is my principle that as a society we can do no better in the use of resources than can he who has through honesty and hard work acquired those resources. Because of of this, I can’t help but be wary when one man (or a group) urges us to immediately take governmental action in order to prevent the impending disaster. Before I forfeit my principles, I’d like to see this “demographic fatigue” for myself. Until then Uncle Sam, keep those filthy hands away from my pockets!

Anyway, Vake, your analysis is impeccable. I’d cast one more point into the waters here: if you applied those equations to the world 20 years ago, you would think that we would be dead by now. If you even applied it 10 years ago, you would have been led devastatingly astray.

Just as one should apply an equation as a hypothesis to explain various data, one should apply this equation to data we already have. If we do, my guess is that it doesn’t just fail to explain the data, it miserably fails to do. As such, the alarmists have not carried the day just yet — which is why, incidentally, they have mostly veered off course toward the Global Warming excuse for making government do crazy things.

Or so says my paranoia.

Here is a quote from that book description: “The burden of enormous populations is making itself felt: as governments struggle with the need to educate children, create jobs…”

This quote sounds like it could have come straight from Malthus’ 1800. The Division of Labor blog posts text from newspapers 100 years ago which they think parallel issues today, or things we hear about today.

The U.S. government clearly provides subsidies for raising children (e.g. education), but there are probably other government disincentives as well (taxes maybe?). I’d guess that the net effect is to increase demand for kids, but that’s just a guess.

A side note: About 30 minutes ago I wanted ice cream, but then when I looked up the nutrition information I changed my mind in favor of a smoothie. I went to Planet smoothie only to find they were closed. What was I to do? Well thankfully, planet smoothie has competitors, and TCBY was open (until 1 am), and I got some good soft serve at a lower price than had I gone to planet smoothie. Praise the market.