Irrational pessimism about population
My son, aged 16, is cleverer than me and knows more about economic theory, which interests him. He has his own views on the world. So I invited him to write a blog post on a topic of his choosing. Here it is:
by Matthew Ridley
Janice Turner provided an amusing dose of irrational pessimism in The Times on 21 August (behind a paywall) with an argument for population control. Talking of China's efforts to control population, she says that:
That one-child policy, you have to concede, certainly works
Her only evidence for such a startling proposition is that she went to Beijing and discovered that it didn't feel very crowded. I can't say for sure but I think the `hundreds and thousands of girls and disabled children abandoned each year' in China, or the millions of Chinese women who have suffered from forced abortions under the policy (well worth reading the full post), may not find such an argument very convincing. According to one writer,
China’s one-child policy causes more violence to women and girls than any other official policy on earth.
Sadly the rest of the Times article does not improve much on this bad start. Janice Turner's arguments become increasing economically questionable. For example, there is this gem:
The one-child policy also aids the economy since, having to fork out less on child-raising, [Chinese parents] can afford more consumer goods, [such as] a car
This is an example of a classic economic fallacy recently debunked in an excellent article by the FT's John Kay. The resources spent on making a consumer good such as a car are economic costs rather than benefits; the "benefit" is the value the consumer gets from owning said car. If some parents would have derived more value from a second child than from a car, but are forced to buy a car thanks to the one-child policy, that is a loss to them and to the economy.
Then she says this:
In a world with ever greater strain on natural resources...is the number of children in a family only a private concern?
Well, yes, actually it is, because the child's parents pay (whether through prices or taxes) for all the resources used to care for their children. If we think the production of those resources imposes external costs on others, then we should increase their price, not ban babies. Equally, if such resources start to run out, then market forces will raise their prices, which in turn will encourage people to innovate around such resource shortages.
It is said that we need new workers to support an ageing population. But we expect our old to stay in work even longer, which, if we continue to breed at this rate, will mean more young unemployed.
This is a classic illustration of the depressingly common "lump of labour" fallacy, which assumes there is a fixed amount of work to be done in the economy which needs to be divided up among the population. No good economist believes this to be true: more work in the economy will stimulate economic growth and consumption, which in turn creates more jobs for others. Countries with higher populations do not have higher unemployment rates.
In fairness to Janice Turner, she does not advocate a one-child policy for the West. Instead she proposes more moderate 'solutions' such as financial incentives for having fewer children. But frankly she has failed to convince me that population needs to be controlled at all. A rational optimist would recognise that there are many benefits to a larger world population, such as more minds to think up new innovations and add to the store of collective intelligence. Sure, we should probably not subsidise new births, as the UK Child Benefit does, but we shouldn't restrict them either. Let's remember that world per-capita income increased massively over the past century even as population skyrocketed, and that population is set to level off in mid-century by itself anyway (see chart below from World Resources Institute)
The most violent official policy in the world towards women and girls is not what the West should be emulating now.
Comments (23)
The number of children per family, as recent history shows in the developed World, tends to fall as prosperity increases - do journalists read nothing besides what they write, even if that?
The "policy" on population should be economic development for better prosperity for all, particularly for children's future.
There is confusion among politicians, journalists and those bright young things in product development, who know not the difference between features and benefits. Perhaps Ridley Jr, who understands this, should spread the word wider.
I'm sorry, but this article really is naive nonsense and very misinformed. Just one example, "the child's parents pay (whether through prices or taxes) for all the resources used to care for their children" - you must be joking! In most of the developed world children are hugely subsidised by governments (and hence taxpayers). Here in the UK there are all sorts of subsidies: child allowance, child tax credits, child trust fund (thankfully currently being abolished), paid maternity and paternity leave, housing benefits and additional access to housing, and so on. Even the state education and health systems are, in effect, subsidies since, contrary to the writer's claim, the child's parents do not directly pay. (It can only be claimed that parents pay through taxes if all families have the same number of children and pay the same in tax, but in reality large families are subsidised by small families and the childless.)
Without doubt the world is grossly overpopulated and stopping further population growth should be a priority (and this is especially true of the UK). The evidence is, sadly, abundantly clear in the huge environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity that has already taken place. As the human population continues to grow the conditions and available space for all other fauna and flora on this planet will continue to worsen. There is nothing "rational" about denying this self-evident truth, but then, of course, the irrational optimists have an entirely anthropocentric world-view, and very noticeably they usually naively believe in the validity and worth of "economic theory". Hah! ... enough said!
That is a very, very good post, and most impressive for someone so young, well done.
Can't fault anything you've said here, in fact I learned something. And I do economics for a living.
Janice Turner ought to hang her head in shame at those arguments.
Well done, young Ridley. Well written.
Yes, zero-sum thinking permeates enviro-discourse throughout society or it seems to at least. Your views, while falling on deaf ears for many such as Ms Turner, are fresh air in an overheated room.
Well done.
Does she mention, that the best way to have birth rates go down is increased education of women?
Great writing Matthew! In response to Terry, isn't it time the UK (and other developed countries) scrapped all those child subsidies? It seems to me that this would be a very smart way to revitalize the economy (by ultimately reducing taxes) and help reduce the overall consumer pressure that leads to environmental degradation. After all, people in developed countries consume far more resources than folks in developing countries. And if a shortage of youth develops in the developed countries, then the smarter youth from developing countries would likely move in and take up the slack - this would also have a knock-on effect of encouraging a gradual flow of people away from rural areas in developing countries (where most of the biodiversity, etc is) to their urban areas and eventually to developed countries. I think this is what "the market" wants, and it will untimately be good for both the economy and the environment, but governments are doing all sorts of things to interfere with this process!
Terry, thanks for your feedback. I completely agree with you that developed-world governments subsidise children extensively and I agree with you that most such subsidies should be limited or abolished, except for the very poorest. It is also true that services provided by the state such as health and education are not directly paid for by parents and are funded by transfers from some families to others. However, all such services and benefits must eventually be paid for by taxes, whether those are explicit taxes or the implicit taxes inherent in government deficits. The point I was trying to make is that ultimately, all the resources must be paid for.
As for your second paragraph, I await the evidence.
16 you say?
Well, that sorts out what you'll be reading at Cambridge anyway.
Drop me a line as and when you're looking for an internship at a think tank in London.
The world is NO WHERE NEAR overpopulated. The problem (as some people see it) is that it's overpopulated in certain places.
Looking at population density in the US- 14 states have less than 10 people per square mile on average (not to mention low population dense countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg). Also, there is an overabundance of resources to serve a much larger population as evidenced by the amount of food wasted on a daily basis in first world countries (and the lack of starving due to actual food shortages vs. inability to pay for food/government mismanagement of food supply).
Much fearmongering is done concerning water. I would like to point out, however, that the cost of desalination is dropping as new technology emerges, rendering such fears moot.
Oil is the biggie, right? The market will solve, and is solving, this.
"If some parents would have derived more value from a second child than from a car, but are forced to buy a car thanks to the one-child policy..."
How does the one-child policy force the parents to buy a car?
"This is a classic illustration of the depressingly common "lump of labour" fallacy, which assumes there is a fixed amount of work to be done in the economy which needs to be divided up among the population. No good economist believes this to be true..."
I'm afraid your argument here is a bit of an overblown oxymoron. If the fallacy is so "depressingly common" and if "no good economist believes" it, where is your evidence of somebody who DOES believe their is a "fixed amount of work to be done in the economy". Please note that this hypothetical "fixed amount" is distinctly different from a <i>given</i> amount. Presumably, any given amount of work can be divided up differently without thereby implying that it is "fixed". That is to say the different division of the work may itself have an effect on the total quantity of work available but where's the "fallacy" in that?
Actually, the fallacy <i>claim</i> itself is fallacious because it attributes an unreasonable belief to people, with no evidence, on the basis of other, quite reasonable beliefs that they do have. See tinyurl.com/lumpoflabor and have a try at refuting the refutation of the lump of labor fallacy claim!
"This is a classic illustration of the depressingly common "lump of labour" fallacy, which assumes there is a fixed amount of work to be done in the economy which needs to be divided up among the population. No good economist believes this to be true..."
I'm afraid your argument here is a bit of an overblown oxymoron. If the fallacy is so "depressingly common" and if "no good economist believes" it, where is your evidence of somebody who DOES believe their is a "fixed amount of work to be done in the economy". Please note that this hypothetical "fixed amount" is distinctly different from a <i>given</i> amount. Presumably, any given amount of work can be divided up differently without thereby implying that it is "fixed". That is to say the different division of the work may itself have an effect on the total quantity of work available but where's the "fallacy" in that?
Actually, the fallacy <i>claim</i> itself is fallacious because it attributes an unreasonable belief to people, with no evidence, on the basis of other, quite reasonable beliefs that they do have. See tinyurl.com/lumpoflabor and have a try at refuting the refutation of the lump of labor fallacy claim!
Well done Master Ridley. You handled well the paternalistic bullying of Terry and his specious claim to self evident causation.
It's hard to believe that the population control nuts who use pseudo-enviro hysterics are even allowed in the room, let alone published in mainstream or alternative literature. It's the worst of prohibitionist culture and the arrogance is appalling. The population controllers discriminate against the poor, the powerless, and women but don't have the courage to openly admit this. In my opinion, it's also borderline racist and has its roots in Anglo European/American imperialism because most often (in the States anyway) it's usually white, college educated, middle to upper-middle class protectionist types leading this bogus argument and using the populations of poor Asians or Africans as "examples". By accident of birth these people were born into the more prosperous west, yet they feel that it gives them the right to prevent poor people in the east or in the southern hemisphere from prospering so these population control nuts can feel better about their wealth and technology.
How can one country be overpopulated without the world being over populated?
Also there are lots of countries with higher population density than India and China.
This is so impressive. I don't have children, but I will most certainly raise them to be a rational optimist if it means being able to think, write and articulate him/herself in this way. Matt Jr., I hope you can use this skill of yours to encourage more young people to critically look at what they are reading, doing, seeing and hearing.
all the world's population can fit - comfortably - in Texas. If one male and one female make one child, each generation there will be half the population, (discounting accidental deaths, wars, disease, etc.) in less than thirty four generations there will be exactly one person. logically, one child policy simply doesn't work. there have to be fluctuations, both up and down, in a population for continuance of a species. In nature population is automatically adjusted, most strongly by availability of food, but also by disease, etc. Human populations will adjust by themselves just as any other population in nature. The major difference is that some humans aren't happy unless they're fretting over something. Most animals don't fret. Personally, I think all the people in the world SHOULD go live in Texas. Those cowboys know how to make them little doggies get along, and by golly we all need to get along! :)
What do you make of the argument that the decline in birth rate in the West is a function of the welfare state. I don't agree with this, but I'd be interested in your take.
Thank you Matthew,
I have spent time in China (and India, as well) and I can tell you that the people there hate the one child policy (but are reluctant to say so in so many words).
On my first night in China, my hosts held a dinner with perhaps 10 people that I would be interacting with, ostensibly as an opportunity to establish working relationships. Actually, I suspect that I was a bit of a curiosity for them as coming from the West. I perfectly understood their curiosity as I was undeniably curious about them myself. We exchanged personal information as to where we grew up, where we had been to school, and where we had lived. Eventually, the talk turned to our children. It was a moment I had dreaded. I have six children, probably more than all the other people in the room combined. When I announced, a bit sheepishly, that I had six children, there was prolonged period of silence in the room. Then a lady sitting across from me (we were sitting at a round table) smiled and gave me a thumbs-up of approval. Then there were a few questions: how many times had I been married? (once) and were all the children mine? (I hazarded a yes).
Over the coming weeks, the subject resurfaced obliquely. They mentioned that the one-child policy had not been popular, and that, hopefully, it would soon be repealed.
As for Terry's comments, it is true that, to a degree, government's subsidized children. But it is for the benefit of the children, not of the parents. I work very hard to support my children and I cannot afford to own new cars or to indulge myself in modest luxuries. When we got married, my wife and I discussed it. We considered that life always presents people with problems and that problems have a way of always seeming overwhelming. No matter what course you choose in life, life will provide a steady and an adequate income of difficulty. We could choose to have no children and spend our earnings on good cars, nice furnishings, and dinning out. Or, we could have children and forego some of life's more extravagant things. Either way, we could safely count on having problems. I suggested that we consider how we would view that decision at the end of our lives. We decided that some problems seemed more worthwhile than others.
I don't consider having children a selfish thing: it's not as if you own them. Anyone who thinks otherwise must not have any children or must be incredibly self-involved to miss the patently obvious. Each child is his or her own person. A parent's reward is deeper and less tangible: it is to share a small portion of their children's life, and to have the happiness of seeing them cope and prosper, each in their own way.
As for the monetary benefits of having children, government subsidies for schools and tax deductions do not come anywhere near what I have to spend (after taxes) to keep the children clothed, housed, insured, pampered, tuitioned and fed.
Perhaps it is a point of view. I like people. I have met many people in India, China, and the West. Except for a few rascals, I have liked all of them, and even for the rascals I have a certain amount of affection.
Thanks again, Matthew for this interesting line of discourse. It is one that, for those of us that live in the west and who have not experienced the effect of single-child policies, is merely an abstract argument, but for those who have encountered it, it is an altogether poignant predicament.
P.S. If you are not already conversant with the work, you might enjoy reading Tristram Shandy by Lawrence Sterne which I first read when about your age. Good fun, and highly educative.
[Snip: no need for such rudeness]
Your 16 year old son shows maturity and economic knowledge far greater than people older than him. He raises many good points, like the mistreatment of women in China. I wonder if the one-child policy has any effect on the rise in apartment prices in urban china.
Mathieu - http://www.cocoonbarcelona.com/
Es serio? No!~ Es no posible!