There seems to be a fair amount of misinformation being purveyed in the comment thread to Loomis's post about population, though at least a few of the comments are accurate, such as the one that noted that global population is on track to level off at about 8.5 or 9 billion. The problem is not the simple one of too many people, but rather, as a few comments noted, how environmental issues, land use, consumption patterns, and maldistribution of resources interact with population density. The projected impact of climate change on the low-lying areas of Bangladesh (which comprise a large part of the country) is a case in point.
The fertility trend in many countries has been downward, often sharply so, in recent decades, with sub-Saharan Africa, if I'm not mistaken, being an exception. One would expect the poorest countries in the world not yet to have completed 'the demographic transition', i.e., birth rates in those countries have remained high while death rates have fallen (e.g., infant and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, although still substantial and unacceptable from a human-rights standpoint, is notably lower than 20 or 30 years ago). I don't follow these issues all that closely but I believe what I've said here is roughly correct. The 'demographic transition' is Demography 101, and the apparent absence of reference to it in the LGM comment thread is perhaps indicative of the thread's quality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
LFC
Back in the dim mists of the previous century, when I was an undergrad, the department in it's never ending effort to impart research skills, would send students to the library to fact check books that were drawing a lot of attention.
That year it was Paul Erlich's "Population Bomb". So I went to the library and pulled the UN statically year books for the years just before 1968, which presumably provided his data, and most likely the best data available. The numbers he used differed from the UN figures by a as much as a factor of 10, and none were any where near close.
The same thing for the equally popular "Hungry Planet" published at about the same time. The "Club of Rome" report has been debunked many times.
Your right about 'demographic transition' being a basic fact to understand the discussion. The whole over population threat seems to have been manufactured.
The "Club of Rome" report has been debunked many times
Hank, I actually think the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, although off in its projections, was a serious and somewhat useful exercise in certain respects. But that's a whole other discussion, and it's late, and I've been wasting time writing comments at Crooked Timber, so I'll leave it there.
(Btw, I'm hoping to post a book review at some point tomorrow that I think you may find of some interest.)
Or make that, "later today" ;)
p.s. Another major demographic/economic/social issue that I might have mentioned in the post is the "youth bulge" in many parts of 'the developing world'. (But again, that wd be a whole other discussion.)
There's a fair amount of sophisticated thought on the multiple interactions of population, resources, cohort size and so on (eg Jack Goldstone's Revolution and Rebellion..., or Peter Turchin and his colleagues in the cliometrics area). But isn't it asking a bit much to think this might be reflected in LGM, or indeed pretty much any blog or popular discourse?
There's a fair amount of sophisticated thought on the multiple interactions of population, resources, cohort size and so on (eg Jack Goldstone's Revolution and Rebellion..., or Peter Turchin....
Goldstone had a piece on global population trends etc. in Foreign Affairs several years ago that was a good overview (I think I might well have mentioned it here before, but won't search for the cite right now).
isn't it asking a bit much to think this might be reflected in LGM, or indeed pretty much any blog or popular discourse?
Maybe (and I didn't read the thread that closely, just got a general sense of it). It also depends on who is commenting on a given post and what they happen to know. E.g., when Robert Farley puts up one of his posts on armaments, there are always one or two people who display what appears to be a fairly sophisticated knowledge of weapons systems... at least compared to my own.
LFC, you don't much like the LGM comment section, do you? ;) I avoid it myself (mostly). Anyway, you're quite right about demography. I tend to have little time or patience for latter-day Malthusians.
Peter
True.
But I have seen better informed comments in about the same space on blogs with a lot less claim to fame than LGM.
JS:
LFC, you don't much like the LGM comment section, do you? ;)
Yeah, not too much. I don't mean to be too critical though; there are some thoughtful commenters there. And I do think Loomis is doing pretty good work on labor and related issues. The pace and quantity of his posts is remarkable too, even if a certain number of them are simply pointing to articles. He's either a speed reader or an excellent time-manager, or both.
Completely off-topic: I happened to pick up the hard copy of the June Harpers earlier today. Among other things, a cover piece by David Bromwich on Obama -- 'critique of the legacy and performance' sort of thing. Possibly worth reading, even if one ends up not wholly agreeing, as I assume wd be the case w/ my reaction.
Post a Comment