not getting it right

This week's issue of The Economist shows a baby in free fall with the title "Falling Fertility." The subtitle is even more telling, it reads: "How the population problem is solving itself."

You guessed it, another right wing stab at Malthus and the doom sayers is here. And sure enough, in the very first sentence the editorial picks on Malthus for getting it wrong. How many times have we heard that one?

Well, there are a few problems. First, Malthus got it right: the population is growing faster than the food supply and for many people on this planet -well over 1 billion in case you wonder- food has already run out. They are starving.

"But wait a minute, not fair," you yell. We really do have enough food, we just can't get it to the right places. Or maybe we don't want to, you didn't say that but it is more like it. We prefer to eat it all ourselves and get grossly overweight (I can assure you that that problem will solve itself too!)

Whatever the story may be, I am sure it is of little consequence for those starving. To them there really isn't enough food. They have really outgrown their resources, albeit only locally.

Second, and this really goes to the crux of it all, all global problems solve themselves. The population explosion, the greenhouse gas accumulation, etc. etc. All these problems will solve themselves. It is just that we may not like the preferred solution. It may not matter so much with food as we are rich enough to shield ourselves, and it may not matter so much with pollution and climate change, at least not for a while. But eventually it will matter.

Third, the falling fertility that is "solving" the population explosion isn't much of a solution for the real problem. We all talk about the population explosion, but it isn't the sheer number of people that is the problem. It is the number of people relative the available resources. And what can we say about that? The population growth is slowing down because people use more resources. They are getting richer as the Economist says (hallelujah!)

The people in India and China are more prosperous today so like Europeans before them they need and have fewer children.

To the Economist this may sound like the angels are singing but to a smart observer that throws up red flags everywhere. Because if India and China are aspiring -and gradually coming up to -our standard of living (standard of waste would be more accurate), then 6 billion will be too many. i.e. we are already too many.

As a matter of fact, just bringing China up to our level would deplete all our resources.

I am sure this problem too will "take care of itself." ALL PROBLEMS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. It is just that -as I said before- we may not like the solution. And if we are smart, we may want to think about how to avoid it from happening. Because sooner or later, the "solution" will affect us rich Americans and Europeans too ! And once it does, it will be too late to preserve our beloved standard of living.