Alex Massie, Again Advocating Overpopulation
An Intemperate Response

Sigh.

Yes, yes. "Advocating overpopulation" is rather uncharitable. But I just cannot fathom the commitment of some people to ever-higher population levels. Among the many astounding things about Massie's posts: there is no mention whatsoever of carry capacity. Rather, he spends all his space pointing out that there are places where the population density is very, very high, and concluding that the population densities of less-dense cities could be higher.

Look. Population is out of control. We might be able to survive overpopulation without (further) disaster, and we might not. But the question is: why risk it? Why intentionally ignore the huge population-related problems we already face? Why on earth pin the future of humanity on what is, in effect, a skeptical argument for the conclusion: we're not absolutely sure that we're all going to die if we keep overpopulating...so why worry?

Massie is responding to the suggestion--the eminently reasonable suggestion--that we face the problem squarely, educate the public about it, and start trying to throttle back a bit on population growth. (He's a Brit, but there's not much difference in the problem/discussion here in the States.) There is nothing wrong with this suggestion. It is, in fact, the prudent suggestion. If, in fifty or a hundred years, with better science and better information about likely consequences, we discover that the population ought to (or at least can) grow, then so be it. Personally, I'm not sure why some people seem so committed to having more and more humans packed onto the globe...but people like Massie want more and more of us for their own inscrutable reasons. I side with those who prefer more wild spaces, a larger agricultural margin for error, and less pressure on our natural resources. People like Massie baffle the hell out of me. Call be crazy, but I am of the opinion that six billion people is a lot. But, of course, we're not talking about six billion, really...we're talking about ten billion, because that's how big the population is likely to get before it starts to contract...as a result of overpopulation. And that's assuming there is no catastrophe driven or exacerbated by overpopulation. Like, oh, say global warming.

People like Massie are basically willing to risk everything on some vague hunches that everything will probably be alright. People like me realize that we've already got lots of problems that overpopulation is exacerbating, and that taking some rather simple, more-or-less common-sense, fairly modest measures to encourage people to throttle back a bit with the reproduction is a good idea. Mitigating the problem now will not be easy; if the problem gets out of control, it will be a disaster.

Here's the thing; people like to have kids. And a good thing, too. No matter how bad the population problem gets, there will be no convincing most people not to have one or two children. All we really need to do now is try to convince people not to have more than two-ish. Massie wants to pretend that we're talking about China-like totalitarian solutions, when, in fact, we're only talking about educating people and trying to appeal to their rational nature. The message would go roughly like this: hey, please don't have three kids. If you just can't bear the thought of having only two, then please, please at least, don't have four. Yeah, that's some totalitarian stuff right there...

Look: here's a kind of fast litmus test: when you're running out of things like water, dirt, and air, the population is too high.

Massie ends with some concentrated sophistry:

Again, the questions those most concerned by population increase never answer are: What's the "ideal" population level?  How will you achieve your goal? What if "cutting off" immigration is not enough to get you to your ideal number? What will you do then?

Note:

A. People like Massie can also not answer the question 'what's the ideal population level?'

B. People like me are not obligated to answer this question--all we need to be able to do is make the case that the population will soon be too high. Massie's question is a red herring.

C. The question 'How will we achieve the goal?' is a different question. Currently, we're just trying to get people like Massie to admit there is a problem.

D. Though, in fact, Massie knows full well what the answer is, because he's responding to someone who made the standard suggestion: education. Education is one of the ways we're addressing global warming, and it's the obvious solution here, too.

E. Ah, immigration. The rest is tail. Here's the dog. Many people, especially liberals, have decided that population can't be a problem because one solution involves lowering (or at least not raising) immigration rates. Partially, this is because they seem to believe that anyone concerned about immigration levels must be a conservative and (hence?) a racist. This is just pathetic. One can be a liberal, and in no way anti-immigration, and yet recognize that immigration levels may have to be discussed in the context of addressing the population problem. Behold, I am such a liberal. To hold that we cannot address the population problem because some racists are anti-immigration is like holding that we can't address the AIDs problem because some bigots are anti-homosexual. It is utter nonsense.

F. What happens if "cutting off" immigration is not enough? Bloody hell. Who's talking about "cutting of" immigration? Right now we're just trying to get the Massie's of the world to admit that there's a problem, and possibly to educate people about it. Perhaps at some point immigration levels might have to be lowered...perhaps. If the problem gets that bad, cutting down these level will be among the least of our problems. And what happens if that isn't enough? The whole point, you see, is to address the problem before anything more radical has to be done. Imagine a Massie-like position on global warming. It would go like this: Oh, you want to educate people about global warming, eh? Well what if that doesn't work? Are you going to have government storm troopers go around shooting out people's lights?  Christ. This is not how you have a sensible discussion about such things.