Being an "economist" taking about population not being at limits just about sums up how useful economists are in such discusions.

ie I fail to understand why economists are treating seriously in discusions about engineering, science, geology, demographics etc as to an economist it all boils down to dollars, have enough and any problem is solvable, you just have to be prepared to pay for it. I have bad news for you, we live on a finite planet, it cant support an infinite number of us...this should be 101 in common sense.

"But before the invention of synthetic fertilisers it was thought that the earth could not support much more than a billion people, yet a solution was found." yes oil and natural gas, 1/2 of which has been used...

So once oil and gas start to become scarce then we cant sustain 6 billion.....or put it another way, they wont be able to afford to eat so they will starve or riot, they have nothing to loose.

"The non-renewable resources that support our society today will not drive it in a hundred years time." The non-renewable resources in use today are 100s of thousands of years of stored energy released in about 100~150 years, this is geological fact and engineering know how. So 1 unit of energy to extract an output of 100:1 (now 30:1, maybe 10:1)....Where do you think we are going to get such return rates from in the future? At the base of engineering is maths or simply energy in = energy out, alternatives are not going to give us the ratios we have enjoyed in the past....we dont convert "an" energy into oil, we extract oil. Future alternatives will be conversions....

"As resources like crude oil become scarcer, the price will increase and there will be more incentive to develop and use alternatives" the traditional view of an economist with no understanding of engineering or time scale....ie if we had an alternative viable energy source right now that would scale to replace oil at a similar rate of return (at least 30:1) in energy invested, it would take us 10~20 years to deply it....Ethanol is the best we have today and its 1:1 maybe 1.2:1 and its water consumption to produce that is un-realistic.....all it really does is convert stationary energy into movable energy....

"We need to change our mindset about population, because most people contribute more to society than what they take." A very liberal and un-realistic view, unfortunately it all comes down to energy conversion....by having birth control we may indeed prevent the birth of another Mahler, however if he starves to death at two, we wont notice anyway.

"With birth-rates also dropping, predictions that we will face crowding and mass starvation are simply scaremongering. The world is facing many environmental and social issues, but tighter population control is not the answer."

No they are not (scaremongering) they paint a possible indeed probable scenario which once we aknoweldge we can avoid. The biggest problem is indeed population this is because most of the world uses a negligable amount of energy compared to the developed world, but their numbers make up for that. Followed by these numbers developing into more energy use....take China alone, their millions want to move from push bikes to cars...then of course we can throw in India....

I could almost say I am speechless by this piece, instead I have written quite a bit....

Bernard: If you are out there, somewhat concerned that over the last few months that the tone is changing here. Pieces appearing on Interest .co.nz are looking rather more idelogical rather than first rate analysis and data presentation I have got used to.

Many people might think that the fact that the vast majority of economists failed to see the crisis we are presently encountering represents the worst failure of prediction that this particular 'profession' was capable of.

The article above should rapidly disabuse anyone of that notion.

Quite how and why the pseudoscience that is economics has risen to such heights that its practioneers feel secure in making pronouncements which should rightfully be the reserve of real scientists and engineers is way beyond me.

Nigel, hopefully then you were required to study the philosophy of science in addition to its methodological prescriptions. It sounds as though you come from a very normative position with respect to belief that technological progress will solve all of the planet's ills.

If you have access to academic journals, I recommend a recent paper by Bluhdorn & Welsh on what they have coined the 'politics of unsustainability' in Environmental Politics, 16(2), 185-205. Not that it covers issues related to population sustainability but nonetheless you will find it applicable to the wider issue of respecting/acknowledging environmental limits vs further exploitation of technology irregardless of potential consequences on the environment.

My thoughts on population control - I don't know - but what I do know is inequality in the distribution of wealth around the planet and the profligate waste of precious resources by the wealthy is a sad indictment on our current application of humanity/moral behaviours. Philanthropy by the rich nation's is not the answer - socially and environmentally just regulation by government's of the rich is. Drop 'free trade' and implement 'fair trade' tomorrow and we could all watch that north south equity gap rapidly diminish in our own lifetimes.

Roger Thompson:

"Equilibrium is reached without a meddling by law makers."

If that your own proclaimation - or have you got any empirical studies, references, links etc. to back it up?

From someone so convinced that "science marches on... to enable future generations to live healthier and more enriched lives than we do" .... where's your scientific backing/evidence?

And in case you don't have any ... here's a link to the Executive summary (Download Statement from the MA Board) from a mega volume set of scientific studies that should change your views.

Thousands of the world's leading scientists are telling us that science can't 'save us' - behavioural and attitudinal change is required to (as you say) "enable future generations to live healthier and more enriched lives than we do."

This change must come through more social and environmental justice from paradigm shifts in present systems of governance.

Nigel: Bsc Hons Engineering...I must have missed yours in the original post and thats a silly game to play IMHO....mine is bigger than yours sounds like my 6 year old. ....and as I said wrong disapline for the subject. Maybe you and Colin Campbell (an oil geologist of some renown) or Boone T Pickens (ditto) can compare quals if you want to go that way.

If you wish not to respond thats up to you, this is after all an opinion piece. There is enough info out there, http://www.peak.oil and http://www.energybulletin.net/ has more than enough info by very competent and qualified people in the relevant fields. They also discuss population and its impact in quite good detail, hence my earlier reply.

PS Wrong argument, oil will indeed probably not run out in your life time, (assuming you are older than 30 anyway) the issue is energy cost to extract whats left. ie rate of energy return on energy invested...back when we first started extracting oil that was 100:1, now we are at 30:1 maybe 10:1 so our expenditure to get the oil has trippled maybe even gone up ten fold. The issue is peak extraction rate (or commonly called peak oil) we are at it....or likely just passed it (2005). This is 85mbpd (ish) total or about 73mbpd crude oil, so we wont be ever producing more than what we produced in 2008. From here its a downward spiral in net supply. This means no more energy to grow the global economy, and its pretty hard to argue that without cheap energy we are going anywhere....this also means that Natural Gas which is used to produce fertilizers is going to reach similar prices. So many of the 3rd world's farmers wont be able to afford fertilizer, this was happening in 2008 when oil was $140.

Now the huge issue I see as an engineer is building refineries or processing plants on the scale needed in the time scale needed, to avoid demand exceeding supply over a protracted period. There is even some doubt that there is enough steel (ie iron ore and the free capacity at smelters) left let alone the personnel to do it in the time scale needed and thats just one aspect.

I am sure we could discuss this a long time, but the info is out there already.

regards

first class honours degree in geography and economics

An excellent demonstration of the difference between education/knowledge and intelligence.
A good application of the former demonstrates the latter.
This article does not.
I don't have the time to try and fill all the holes in this article. And also lack enough fingers.

I suggest:

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

<blockquoteThe greatest shortcoming of the Human Race is our inability to understand the exponential function

Just because I cross the road without looking 20 times and don't get run down doesn't mean I won't get run down the 21st time.

Nigel,
out of interest what strand of economics did your degree teach?

Nigel Said: "Economics is a science of making the best from finite resources. As we learn how to do more with less (technological progress) society has proven the Malthusians wrong time and again."

Its pretty bad at it since it seems to lack a fundemental quality that other scientific subjects offer. They all make rather acurate predictions, except of course economics which always seems to be wrong. If we were wrong so much in physics, computer science, chemistry etc. Then planes for example would be falling out of the sky left and right.

You also confuse technological and energy they are completely different concepts technology allows you to harness an energy source and change the form of that energy. Over time you may find more efficient ways to harness the energy (technological improvements) but you must never kid yourself that these improvments are infinite there is always an upper bound which you can't cross. Technology will never allow you to get energy out of nothing, not without a complete re-working of our understanding of the universe.

The internal combustion engine is the technology that allows us to harness oil the energy source. There is right now on earth NO energy source that replaces oil with a good return on energy invested, ethanol at 1.2:1 compared to say 10:1 requires a near 10 fold energy investment to use it. Hydrogen fuel isn't even an energy source as H2 doesn't exist anywhere in nature, it is a battery you must first invest energy to produce the H2 then you must convert the H2 via a fuel cell to give.

Steven as a libertarian I can't allow the state to force people to not re-produce. I do acknowledge that we face a problem. However the very first step government should do is remove tax incentives that favour people who have children over those that do, an example being working for families. We should also remove the funding schools and place the tax burden on the parents not society as well. Look if someone chooses to not have children they should not be forced to subsidize the people in society who do.

Hi everyone commenting,

There is no need to attack Nigel's qualifications or those of economists, no matter what your argument is such a line of attack is pointless. We should all just stick to the issues and try to discuss our underlying arguments - which will be based on different underlying assumptions.

My impression is that the article is saying the following:

Prices represents scarcity. Therefore as long as the price signal is allowed and able to act, allowing private markets to function will lead to the best possible outcome - both by helping to drive technological progress (as people look for substitutes) and forcing people to change their behaviour given the current endowment of resources.

Now the outcome may involve a sharp drop in living standards, but merely moving forward the drop in living standards to now instead of the future makes little sense.

His ultimate point seemed to be that people who don't allow for technological progress and then move on to say a doomsday scenario is a certainty are being dishonest. And I have to agree.

Technology and technological progress is an inherently difficult issue - who knows what the future will bring! However, assuming technological advancement is a better assumption than assuming technology will remain stagnant.

This isn't to say that the doomsday scenario isn't remotely possible - it is. But it doesn't make sense to base policy on a scenario that only has a 0.1% chance of happening.

Matt, yes we're all aware of Hayak's (i.e. classical economics) reliance on price signals as a means to achieve (as you say) "the best possible outcome' and hence ensure society's on-going stable functioning.

But, from my perspective, I'm not buying classical economics as the implied "she'll be right, mate" theory on why we are not going to exceed the carrying capacity of the planet because it tells us 'the market' won't allow it.

Hayak's theory fails to accomodate the workings of irrationality - nor do I think he could ever have imagined the market in intangibles (all these creative instruments that Wall Street et al.) have dreamed up of late.

I guess what I'm saying is we need more consideration of philosophy, ethics and morals - because they have equally, if not greater, utility to society than does the belief in price mechanisms and technological progress.

Q

Hi Kate,

"Matt, yes we're all aware of Hayak's (i.e. classical economics) reliance on price signals as a means to achieve (as you say) "the best possible outcome' and hence ensure society's on-going stable functioning."

The idea that price embodies scarcity is a bit older than Hayek - but as you say it is a corner stone of economic analysis.

Now, we may well have very different belief's surrounding the ability of prices to represent underlying scarcity, which is fine. However, the idea that price illustrates scarcity doesn't require perfect rationality. We can have all sorts of "irrational" agents and the price signal can still illustrate the scarcity of resources.

Ethics and morals do matter - but IMO they matter only insofar as conscious beings value them. When it is framed this way, price captures underlying moral and ethical concerns. Government intervention makes sense when society "can't reach" the point it wants to because of some type of prisoner's dilemma. However if this is the case this is the issue we should be focused on rather than arbitrary population targets.

Hi Steven,

"The problem I have with prices representing scarcity is that there is no allowance for time or indeed that there is an alternative"

Time is captured in pricing. However, I do understand your issue with inter-generational equity.

If we think that the current generation does not value the next generation, then they will over-consume limited resources (run down natural capital). Implicitly many economists believe that each generation does value the welfare of their children sufficiently.

Now, if this is the issue we should be looking at some way of trying to incorporate this "externality" in the price of goods instead of setting arbitrary population caps. I believe the Greens suggested this with a tax on scarce resources. This is an interesting idea - but whether we believe in it or not stems from our view on how much the current generation values the next generation.

On economists and this,

Ultimately, economists don't know about technical technological or physical issues. However, the whole purpose of our discipline is to discuss the allocation of resource in the face of scarcity.

Nigel's article was criticising the idea that population caps are a good allocation mechanism. I think this is a fair point given the issues we have discussed here.

Wow, I don't have time to read all these posts, and some seem to be way off topic, but good to see it has generated discussion.

Just skimming the last couple of post by Steven, I have to point out that it was you that attacked my qualifications and ability to comment on the subject. I am merely pointing out the fact that a trained economist is indeed qualified to make statements about how we use and allocate scarce resources.

Furthermore, regarding my lack of response to your points, in my opinion you completely missed the point of the article and displayed an ignorance of many of the issues. When people say "we can't have continued growth on a finite planet" it makes me cringe because it displays a lack of fundamental understanding about the variables involved.

However, it is easy to understand this sort of statement coming from an engineer who is obviously passionate about his field. That is why we also need economists.

Another general point I will add is that inequality is a different issue from carrying capacity.

Finally, for those attacking the economist's ability to forecast anything useful, ever wonder why we haven't just had another Great Depression? We learnt some hard lesions and the same will happen this time. Like in engineering (and other disciplines that pretend to be more real that economics) we are constantly improving our processes. It's a thankless discipline really, but none the less rewarding.

Nigel

BAZ : finally, a brother optimistic sceptic. Yes, Nigel must have the skin of a rhino to charge into the politically correct socialist brigade. But, bless you, Nigel, for having the ka-hoonas to tell the truth as you see it.

And yes, BAZ, Al Gore has lost all credibility, since losing an election to George Bush Jr., due to a stuff up in counting of Florida's votes, circa 2000. He has hitched his flag to the "Global Warming" fraternity, and lost all sight of science and reason. Shame !

Kate : your reply to my blog sounded like you were encouraging population control mechanisms dictated by Government legislation.....Oooooooooh, Kate ! That hasn't worked for the Peoples Replublic of China. And a moustachied little critter called 'Dolfie Hitler failed to fully implement it too.

Hi Matt, sorry about the name mix up.

"Prices aren't static - they depend on expected prices in the future, which depend upon the scarcity of a good over time." The biggest issue as I see is, in the real world this does not occur ie a smooth and protracted rise is considered the norm for the theory/model.

I think I can show what I mean or why I disagree,

We can look at a obvious example of this assumption not working too well and impacting hugely on society as a result...It is actually unfolding before our eyes. Take the price of oil at $147 a barrel, indeed >$100 a barrel lots of investment (drilling and examining of alternatives was going on) at $40 (though now its climbing, $58) investment just about collapsed. This within the next 12~24months (but maybe as far as 4~5years out) is going to lead to shortages of oil, a huge price increase which will impact us greatly. If the point of view holds up that at when energy cost gets to 6~7% of GDP then again we will be looking at another recession...If as is suggested we are currently into a lost decade aka Japan then thats going to force a further and significant recession if not then a real depression.

".....current generations are running down natural capital in a way that is not socially optimal." I would concur with that point wholeheartedly.

This does not mean that I think it was on purpose, previous generations I think honestly had no real idea of the planets natural limits and their impacts. However with the baby boomers I do think they are now enough worldy wise and well educated to see that, yet if anything they are not curtailing....

A real world example would be my God-father, he has no children so has quite happily stated that he does not care about what happens after him so will continue to "party" til he drops.....

Last para, agree 100%....I would prefer that markets did indeed dictate/send signals and if need be Govns' steer a bit.......

Nigel:

When people say "we can't have continued growth on a finite planet" it makes me cringe because it displays a lack of fundamental understanding about the variables involved.

If I can re-word that to "we can't have continue growth on a finite planet" so you are saying we can? sorry but this is patently absurd in practice (and eventually theory)....and again if correct shows up a common failing point of economists (not my words, but I tend to agree) ie when the economic theory meets practice it does not hold up. However you are not unique as a disipline, many clients and management types I deal with also fail miserably ie get upset when their theories are challenged or get told it wont work. At that point of course I am making a value judgement, I choose to walk away from a project that I think will fail or cost more than projected. When this comes to the planet we live on of course I cant do that....

As for completely missing the point, I think I did, but the art of communication is that the receiver does indeed get the point but its the sender who bears the responsibilty to make the message clear. This is an advantage of feedback like this though, clarification....Yet again I have re-read your article and subsquent points, slowly I see what you are saying.....however I still dis-agree with you on many points though...

regards

Steven - good example regards oil. I have also noticed in some of the instances where Government's have privatised public resources under the theory that assigning a price mechanism will achieve 'optimum use' - hoarding (i.e. non-use as a mechanism to exclude competitors) often becomes the 'optimum use'.

The old "use-it-or-lose-it" argument ensues.

Roger Thompson - no, I don't think we need population control - in fact the low birth rate of Western (wealthy) countries is going to be so serious in the not so distant future - that there are likely to need to be big changes to immigration laws in these countries in order to re-stock them with able bodied young people from the poor countries.

I don't think the present global population exceeds the capacity of the planet - it is the manner and rate at which we use resources - waste and consumerism - the expenditure of energy on non-essential (junk) - is the problem.

A more equitable and sensible distribution of the use of the planet's energy sources is the answer, combined with a global perspective on freshwater reserves and more equitable immigration laws which thereby allow the migration of populations in water-deficient regions greater options.

Degrees Doctorates acedemics....what ever.. these have nothing to to with intellence...then every so often one of these academics also have some common sense and figure out why the apple falls or get a Nobel prize.

History shows for since time immemorial, ants, elephants and people form communities, cities , civilisations. And others migrate... bigger the better, the more powerful, and come to believe that progress, economics is dependant on increased population.
If this was the case , logically it would follow when they where not big they would never have progressed.
Then the inevitable happens and the surrounding territory is unable to sustain the civilisation.....which results in archaeologists digging them up and finding this out....
Is this not why small [peasant ' villages would farm, hunt, then after a few yrs move on when resources are exhausted?

Now we are in the 21st century, we believe in our egos, in the same manner as they did 1000s of yrs ago, we are invincible. Only this time where do we "move on to" ?

Doesnt take a arm full of PhD s to figure this out, just a bit of old fashioned common sense

Then their are those who believe science will sort everything out....well I hope these people are not athists....as it is just this same sort of argument they would use in regards to "faith in God"

Doug:
"Those left will rebuild a new society with plenty of resources to sustain V8's for another millennium"
OH I hope so m8, cant beat a classic late 60s muscle car for a daily driver...lol

Noddy: If you were going to engineer a smaller population, wouldn't it make sense to use a biological agent? It's cheaper, leaves buildings and infrastructure intact, and so long as you have access to the antidote, very selective. Just a thought.

An intersting read, a book "The Peter Principle" from the late 60s/70s
Think the author was a guy Peter Townsend???
Explains why the saber tooth tiger became extinct to ineffective mangers who are promotted above their capabilties.
Agree or not, it is a really good read, if it is still around.

David MacKay is a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge. His book, "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air," is published by UIT Cambridge and is also available in electronic form for free from http://www.withouthotair.com/.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html

" In total, the European lifestyle uses 125 kWh per day per person for transport, heating, manufacturing, and electricity. That's equivalent to every person having 125 light bulbs switched on all the time. The average American uses 250 kWh per day: 250 light bulbs.

And most of this energy today comes from fossil fuels. What are our post-fossil-fuel options?

Among the energy-saving options, two promising technology switches are the electrification of transportation (electric vehicles can be about four times as energy-efficient as standard fossil-fuel vehicles) and the use of electric-powered heat pumps to deliver winter heating and hot water (heat pumps can be four times as energy-efficient as standard heaters).

Among all the energy-supply technologies, the three with the biggest potential today are solar power, wind power and nuclear power."