The Ultimate Resource
Opinion Editorial by Walter E. Williams -
Jul 24, 2008
28 ratings from readers
Policy makers often claim poverty is caused by "overpopulation." In places like Congo, Zimbabwe, and Hong Kong, however, just the opposite is true. Is man really a burden on earth, or the ultimate resource?
Why is it that
mankind enjoys cell phones, computers and airplanes today but not
when King Louis XIV was alive?
The necessary physical resources to
make cell phones, computers and airplanes have always been around,
even when caveman walked the Earth.
There is only one answer to why
we enjoy these goodies today and not yesteryear. It's the growth in
human knowledge and ingenuity, along with specialization and trade, that
led to the industrialization, coupled with personal liberty and
private property rights.
For most of
mankind's existence, he has been self-sufficient and spent most of
his time simply eking out a living.
In pre-industrial societies, and
in some places today, the most optimistic scenario for the ordinary
person was to be able to eke out enough to meet his physical needs
for another day.
With the rise of industrialization and development
of markets, and the concomitant rise in human productivity that
yielded seemingly ceaseless economic progress, it was no longer
necessary for mankind to spend his entire day to meet his physical
needs.
People became able to satisfy these needs with less and less
time. This made it possible for more people to have the time to read,
become educated in the sciences and liberal arts, gain more knowledge
and become more productive.
The resulting wealth also enabled them
the opportunity to develop spiritually and culturally through
attending the arts and participate in other life activities that were
formerly within the purview of the rich.
Contrary to the
myths we hear about how overpopulation causes poverty, poor health,
unemployment, malnutrition and overcrowding, human beings are the
most valuable resource and the more of them the better.
There is
absolutely no relationship between high populations and economic
despair. For example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly
Zaire, has a meager population density of 22 people per square
kilometer while Hong Kong has a massive population density of 6,571
people per square kilometer.
Hong Kong is 300 times more crowded than
the Congo. If there were any merit to the population control crowd's
hysteria, Hong Kong would be in abject poverty while the Congo
flourishes. Yet Hong Kong's annual per capita income is $28,000 while
the Congo's is $309, making it the world's poorest country.
What are the
chances for the United States to become overpopulated? The population
census has us at 304 million. How many more people could we handle?
I
don't have an answer, but here are a couple of facts that suggests we
have a ways to go before we have to worry about overpopulation. All
urban areas, any community of at least 2,500 people, cover less than
3 percent of the U.S.'s 2.3 billion acre land mass.
The world's
population is 6.7 billion. That means if the entire world's
population were put into the U.S., each person would have about a
third of an acre.
Nobody is talking about putting the world's
population in the U.S. It is merely to suggest that neither the U.S.
nor the world is running out of space.
Population
controllers have a Malthusian vision of the world that sees
population growth as outpacing the means for people to care for
themselves.
Mankind's ingenuity has proven the Malthusians dead
wrong. As a result of mankind's ingenuity, we can grow increasingly
larger quantities of food on less and less land.
The energy used, per
dollar of GDP, has been in steep decline, again getting more with
less, and that applies to most other inputs we use for goods and
services.
The greatest
threat to mankind's prosperity is government. A recent example is
Zimbabwe's increasing misery. Like our country, Zimbabwe had a
flourishing agriculture sector, so much so it was called the
breadbasket of southern Africa.
Today, its people are on the brink of
starvation as a result of its government. It's the same story in many
countries
—
government interference with mankind's natural tendency
to engage in wealth-producing activities.
Blaming poverty on
overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook; it encourages
the enactment of harmful policies.
Walter E. Williams
is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax,
Virginia. He has authored more than 150 publications, including many in
scholarly journals, and has frequently given expert testimony before
Congressional committees on public policy issues ranging from labor
policy to taxation and spending.