Loading UTC time and date...
2025/07/10
One of the most compelling arguments against overpopulation as a phenomenon is that population all across the world has increased substantially since 1945 and no catastrophe followed.
Indeed, ask most "experts" and they will tell you that even if lots of people may cause some strain on natural resources or some abstract concept of the planet or environment as a single whole, in general, the prediction of mass catastrophes caused by overpopulation is overblown.
Many critics of the concept of overpopulation will point to Paul Ehrlich and his 1968 warning about overpopulation either in order to debunk it or to blame it for causing alarmism and misguided disastrous policies such as the One Child policy of China.
But they miss the important point - most people who live today and decide not to make a family never read Paul Ehrlich and - at best - have only heard about the concept of overpopulation but never made a decision to postpone having a child, let alone to stay childless.
However, the same people often bring up the problem of under-population as a threat to society as we know it. They predict the doom and gloom of stagnating growth, increasing dependency and an economic collapse that follows.
But if overpopulation was never a problem, why do we have to worry about a decrease in population?
What came first? The chicken or the egg?
Did the population explode and then began to crunch? Or are we suddenly seeing a population crunch out of the blue?
Most developed countries face a challenge of housing, caring and funding a massive cohort of retirees, and there isn't going to be enough young people to pay for them as time goes on. This is what alarms desperate Pro-natalists. Apparently, there is no overpopulation problem, but there is an under-population problem ... because there are too many retirees and not enough youngsters ....
No, it's not overpopulation, mate! It's just that there's a shit ton of old farts you need to pay for!
Right. I hope you get what I'm hinting at.
The logical inconsistency is astonishing, especially if you consider how many steps Pro-natalists take to persuade us that overpopulation is not a problem.
So what came first? Overpopulation and then the population collapse? Or vice versa? And if there was no overpopulation, then why is there a population crunch?
This is an important consideration when engaging in this kind of a population debate - over- and under-population are fairly relative to each other. That there is an oversized population cohort that causes problem to others is a sign of an overpopulation.
The ideal "population" pyramid in the eyes of Pro-natalists would be something like an actual pyramid - more at the bottom end (newborns, teenagers and younger adults) and a shrinking top (retirees). But this pipe dream misses the point that an ever increasing amount of children strains the productive population as much as the dependent elderly.
Worse! Some of the retirees have invested into their retirement, putting away money and other savings to keep a steady income flow. This way, they can put money they make into economy and as they work to their retirement, provide the necessary investment for the industry to grow, borrow at lower costs and create new jobs.
Children offer no such benefit. Their only utility is that eventually they may become productive members of society. But that in itself is our, adults', imposition on the newborns. Who asked them if they want this fate?
But the situation is actually worse. Many of the elderly have no investment or it was wasted or burned away - in wars, crises and disasters.
The employees have no choice but bite the bullet and pay for their social insurance under a vague promise of having the future generations pay for them instead.
Except the future generations won't happen ... and even if they were born - who are we to impose that duty on them?
So what is the solution to the burden of the elderly? Pro-natalists have a solution alright - have kids!
But here's a catch - there is not enough working, productive population to cover the elderly dependents. So who will pay for dependent children?
Ah, now here we finally found the flaw in their solution.
See, the burden is now and not in 18 years on (correction: it will be there in 18 years alright, and even worse!), so we need something that works now. Some people say that immigration is a solution, but that is a poor solution. Why? Immigrants cause tension and are costly politically. Worse, the immigration procedure is a bureaucratic hell, often forcing menial labor migrants to work illegally - thus contributing little or nothing to fund the dependents. And furthermore, immigrants aren't infinite, and there are various countries that compete for them. An IT engineer from Poland can get paid the same in London and Dubai, but Dubai won't charge him exhorbitant taxes. Conclusion? That is an easy fix, which is very costly and very flawed. Something else has to be done instead.
Having more kids can work. But again, you need someone who can work now. On top of that, by having kids you are increasing the burden on economy. Not only the mothers are out of the workforce for the duration of pregnancy and the first years of child-rearing, but the burden on producers to fund maternity leaves, tax breaks and cash payments to mothers worsen, not lighten the burden.
So imagine the position of the working man (yes, a male of the extant homo species) - he has elderly parents, a child and a wife to take care of. And on top of that, he has to pay taxes, so that millions of the old people get paid their promised retirement checks.
What a deal!
And if the Pro-natalists' dream comes true and we see a surge of kids, you will witness nothing else but more government spending and the subsequent debasement of the currency.
Those who work will lose and those who slack will be rewarded. That's the world where producers are punished and useless eaters are rewarded.
That's the "Sadnwich" generation - a small cohort of mostly males, who overwork and overachieve only to have the fruits of their labor taken away in the name of feeding, clothing and lodging the old, the poor and the incompetent ...
So here is the solution and you won't like it.
The amount of dependents has to decrease - either due to natural causes or natural or not-so-natural disasters.
A decline in births is a natural, instinctual response of a population where the number of dependents is above optimal. I cannot tell you what is that optimal number, but the lower it is, the better.
If you want more kids, you will have to have fewer old people. In the dependency, it's a zero sum game. And as much as it pains me to say this - the old will have to go to leave space for kids.
That's the only solution that may work but Pro-natalists will never say it out loud.
A compromise may be due.
How about this - stop rewarding incompetenece.
If you spent your most productive 40-50 years not working and saving for retirement, then you deserve to starve.
If you spent your youth being a responsible adult, you deserve to keep the rewards of your diligent and conscientious attitude, and that will be fair and just.
As for the rest, and for single mothers and their children, and the old bums, and whatnot ... - they can ask a charity for help. Leave it to those who want to help.