Earth Day Thoughts: Global Climate and Malthusian Scare

Global Warming.  It’s happening, right?  Ever since Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, everyone has just assumed that global warming is a real thing, and based on many scientists’ stances toward climate change, we need to reduce carbon emissions and try to save the world from some kind of The Day After Tomorrow scenario.

Well, perhaps not.  Here’s a post by a fellow blogger which is entitled “Earth gives us an Earth Day present:  Arctic sea ice is highest for this date in 8 years.” In summary, the author points to recent studies that indicate that the ice in the arctic sea has actually returned to a near-normal level.  So…how does this fit in with global warming?  “Well…it’s global cooling, which is caused by global warming, which is caused by people.”  Does anyone else detect something amiss in this?  Because this is really what some scientists are saying:  that global cooling is the natural result of global warming.  So wait a minute…that sounds oddly like a cycle:  a global warming trend causes ice cap melting, which causes in influx of cooler air into the world’s oceans, which brings about a trend of global cooling, which causes the ice caps to refreeze.

Now personally, I at this point have decided that human activity has little to do with this global climate.  I am not saying that human activity doesn’t affect the climate; for certain, pollution, urban sprawl, and other such human issues cause environmental damage.  What I am saying is that, based on the data we have, the climate really is cyclic, not just in that it’s a cycle itself, but it’s built with cycles on top of cycles on top of cycles, and I highly doubt that after 100 years of our current technologically advanced culture, we will have all of that figured out.

Let us suppose, however, for the sake of argument, that human activity does affect global climate.  So the world gets a little warmer…which means that it gets a little cooler next time around in the cycle, which the next warm cycle counterbalances, and so on until we’re approximately where we’ve started.  Now, legitimately, if enough of a global warming trend occurs that all the ice caps melt and the world is drowned, that would be an…apocalyptic problem.  However, that is not what the data we have is forecasting.

Now, if there’s been two alarmist trends over the last 50 years, it has been the fears of the changing global climate (cooling during the 60′s, warming during the 90′s) and the Malthusian scare:  “The world is overpopulated! There aren’t enough resources for everyone!”  As a result, many modern philosophers have proposed euthanasia, abortion, and other such measures to help control the world’s overwhelming population.

Well, it appears that the Malthusian scare might be a total farce as well.  A recent article called “Sleepless in Shanghai” has stated that the very opposite of a Malthusian scare may soon occur.  Instead of world overpopulation, we may soon be experiencing world underpopulation.  Let me explain: in most developed countries on Earth, the birth rates are falling.  I remember when I was younger, the average children per family in the United States was 2.3.  Recently, I’ve heard that it’s dropped to 2.1.  Now, the Malthusian alarmists will say, “That’s good!  We need fewer people to feed!”  But wait a minute, let’s think about the effects that this is having and is going to have.

First of all, overpopulation is a localized problem.  There’s cities in the United States that have hundreds of people per square mile, and there’s places in the United States that have become wilderness because there’s less than one person per square mile, and that’s just in the United States.  The majority of the world’s population is concentrated in Asia: China and India alone have 3 billion people – over half of the human population on Earth is concentrated in two countries that are no larger than the United States and Canada.

Now, the real concern with the overpopulation debate is the need for resources:  The more people there are, the more resources need to be produced for them to consume.  Well, if people are really concerned with this overpopulation thing, then why aren’t people simply suggesting that we stop sending so much food to the United States and send more of it to Asia?  After all, we’re only 300,000,000 people, while China and India come together to possess about 10 times that number of people, yet the United States alone controls and consumes over half of the resources produced on the planet – in fact, one figure I’ve heard says that’s actually closer to 2 out of 3 global resources are consumed in the United States.  But most people don’t want fewer, scarcer resources in the United States.  They see a problem, but they aren’t willing to change their lifestyle in order to help fix the problem.

So, what about underpopulation? To be honest, I think underpopulation may become a far more real problem than the Malthusian scare.  For example, Social Security in the United States is under a constant threat now from the Baby Boomers.  Why?  Because not enough young people are working to support the older, more numerous generation.  (Interestingly, recent statistics have shown that approximately 50 million people have died in the last 50 years in the United States from abortions.  Now, I don’t care whether you think it’s right or wrong; that’s still 50 million fewer people that are working to support our faltering economy).  That’s just scratching the surface too; imagine how bad the housing market will be when we have too many houses and not enough people to live in them.  Yes, this is a financial disaster in the making.

Oh, and this article also points out that China, infamous for it’s famed one-child policy, is now encouraging their couples to have 2 instead of 1.  Why?  Because they’re having the same problems we are.  Their economic system is threatened.  Perhaps we should take some clues from them.

Now, inevitably, some people would say, “Well, these are all problems for the future.  Why should I care?  I like how things are right now.”  Ah…I hear these words, and the word “selfish” sneaks to the front of my mind.  So, I would say that if you don’t care enough for your children to try to give them the best kind of culture and future they can have, then I would say go ahead and don’t have any children.  Live on your thrones of materialism…and don’t expect me to be very sympathetic when you’re freaking out because the world is falling apart.

Okay, rant complete.

SfC