The Ponzi Population Theory

Agamedes blasts off again, against the economic mantra of "growth, growth, growth".

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Shane Wright, economics editor for The West, wrote (18 Oct 10):

I don't think anyone is advocating a one-child policy for Australia or the shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand or Britain to ease population pressures, so there is no avoiding a bigger country.

In other words, instead of wringing hands, many of us have to start thinking about how to deal with more people and the benefits that flow from that.

On the one hand we have people who can see the immediate profit to be gained from more people. For example: bring in skilled immigrants and it saves the cost of training our own people. Or, bring in unskilled immigrants and they will work for peanuts because the large numbers of desperate job seekers will weaken the bargaining power of unions.

Then there are the economists, like Wright. They see that more people is a cheap and quick method of increasing the market for the goods that those extra people will consume. A Ponzi scheme with people. And economists are so divorced from reality that they cannot see the end result of continued growth.

How can these people support their dangerous views, when there are loud voices calling for a halt to the disasters of over-population? When logic fails, try emotions.

"I don't think anyone is advocating a one-child policy..." One-child policy? Doesn't that just hit at the heart and gonads! No-one is -- seriously -- advocating a one-child policy for Australia. Wright just uses the phrase as a red rag, to stir up unthinking resistance to... whatever... could be done to limit population growth.

"Shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand..." What?! They (whoever "they" are) can't just ship old people / dear old granny / me... off to some foreign place! Oh my, can't you just feel the anger building...

Has anyone actually suggested "shipping of elderly people off to New Zealand"? Other than the economically myopic Shane Wright, that is. No... I didn't think so.

When logic fails, resort to emotional threats.

Yes, you're right. The tone of this blog post is more emotive than my usual. A natural response to emotional non-logic is to reply in kind. Sorry about that.

So what can we do?

Population growth may bring economic growth. It can also bring growth in crime, more crowded cities, more pollution, increased destruction of the environment, increasing divide between the haves and the have-nots.

What do we actually want?

Do we want population growth? Not as far as I can tell... Even the economists see population growth as merely a means to an end. Is there an alternative means to whatever end we desire?

Let's just guess that we all want a better standard of living. For ourselves and, if possible, for others. How can we achieve a better standard of living?

Economists say, grow the population, which will grow the economy, which will... perhaps, for some of us... improve our standard of living. But that's a simple Ponzi scheme: We grow, we grow, we grow, until there is no more room for growth. And then, like overcrowded rats, we kill each other.

Is there an alternative?

What we really need, is a better way to improve our lives. A way which will actually improve the lives of as many people as possible. A way which will not result in eventual destruction of what we already have.

There is no point in increasing population just for the sake of growth. We are already suffering from population pressure. Vague economic theories do not balance the actual loss of what we once enjoyed.

Forget the easy -- and false -- promises of economic growth theorists.

Let's look for solution that give us what we actually want.

Let's look for ideas that will actually work.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com