[VIDEO] Libertarians - Is there an Overpopulation Problem?

[AlexMerced]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fZZiB3Ox18

Any other arguments I'm forgetting?

[onlyrp]

I'll address what you said.

First, you are somewhat correct, we're not perfect in allocating resources, but it's usually a socialist complaint that we should, as if we owe anybody but ourselves anything. I am glad you are not one of those people who think life was better 100 years ago. Yes, we are definitely more resourceful, meaning more efficient and creative in using resources. This leads to the following "problems", when life is comfortable or cheap, people lose incentive to be responsible, frugal, and conserving. Therefore, people will either demand more, or have more children.

High birth rate is indicative of two kinds of modern societies : socialist and poor. If we had the pressure, responsibility as we held to people 100 years ago, we'd be less socialist in supporting irresponsible parents, and in turn, have a lower birth rate. A principly pro-life ideology is no different than a socialist one, one which puts ideals above practicality.

So to answer your question, are Malthusians saying there's too many people, too few resources? Yes. But is the solution to be more creative with using resources or control consumption? Neither of these are particularly libertarian. What you will realise over history is, that people always demand more when they can. 100 years ago people did not complain that they only have one tv, one car, one house per household. Today people are not complaining they don't have a personal jet plane. But just wait when we CAN achieve that, people will start demanding that as "basic necessities".

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll address what you said.

First, you are somewhat correct, we're not perfect in allocating resources, but it's usually a socialist complaint that we should, as if we owe anybody but ourselves anything. I am glad you are not one of those people who think life was better 100 years ago. Yes, we are definitely more resourceful, meaning more efficient and creative in using resources. This leads to the following "problems", when life is comfortable or cheap, people lose incentive to be responsible, frugal, and conserving. Therefore, people will either demand more, or have more children.

High birth rate is indicative of two kinds of modern societies : socialist and poor. If we had the pressure, responsibility as we held to people 100 years ago, we'd be less socialist in supporting irresponsible parents, and in turn, have a lower birth rate. A principly pro-life ideology is no different than a socialist one, one which puts ideals above practicality.

So to answer your question, are Malthusians saying there's too many people, too few resources? Yes. But is the solution to be more creative with using resources or control consumption? Neither of these are particularly libertarian. What you will realise over history is, that people always demand more when they can. 100 years ago people did not complain that they only have one tv, one car, one house per household. Today people are not complaining they don't have a personal jet plane. But just wait when we CAN achieve that, people will start demanding that as "basic necessities".Only because those products weren't refined and/or cheap enough to create demand for more than one. People most likely wanted those things, but the supply didn't exist. When I was a kid I wanted a big screen TV, but they weren't available at a good price till much later. The new appearance of big, affordable TVs "stimulated" demand. Just sayin.

[onlyrp]

You are also correct, the wrong people are having kids. And it IS a misallocation of incentives. But it is not "burdensome" to have kids if you are poor enough. I have no problem with a society being either anti-rich or anti-poor, but our society seems to do both, so we are only hurting the people in the middle.

Your point about condoms. Thank Catholics and fundamentalist anti-abortionists for that. The fact you are able to judge that there are "right and wrong people" to have kids (I know you didn't use those words, but you didn't need to), goes to show you are not one of those naive egalitarians who are unable to tell people apart. The price of equality and inability to make distinctions leads exactly to this : MISALLOCATION OF RESOURCES AND INCENTIVES. (it doesn't help that there's also competiting special interest groups who don't care about you).

[onlyrp]

Only because those products weren't refined and/or cheap enough to create demand for more than one.


Yes, but people lived fine, didn't think it was a "right". But since we CAN have them today, it suddenly becomes a necessity.



People most likely wanted those things, but the supply didn't exist.

or existed at a price they couldn't afford. I bet even back then people were making up conspiracy theories about how the NWO is fixing prices to keep them poor. Today when TVs are cheap, they complain that they're using TV to indoctrinate slaves. If you don't have a TV somebody owes you one, because all the Joneses do. If you have a TV, then it's a conspiracy to keep you entertained.



When I was a kid I wanted a big screen TV, but they weren't available at a good price till much later. The new appearance of big, affordable TVs "stimulated" demand. Just sayin.

Indeed. Therefore efficiency of resource allocation will not solve anything, just like vacuum cleaners didn't reduce the work time of women, it only increased the demands of their husbands and employers.

[Origanalist]

I'll address what you said.

First, you are somewhat correct, we're not perfect in allocating resources, but it's usually a socialist complaint that we should, as if we owe anybody but ourselves anything. I am glad you are not one of those people who think life was better 100 years ago. Yes, we are definitely more resourceful, meaning more efficient and creative in using resources. This leads to the following "problems", when life is comfortable or cheap, people lose incentive to be responsible, frugal, and conserving. Therefore, people will either demand more, or have more children.

High birth rate is indicative of two kinds of modern societies : socialist and poor. If we had the pressure, responsibility as we held to people 100 years ago, we'd be less socialist in supporting irresponsible parents, and in turn, have a lower birth rate. A principly pro-life ideology is no different than a socialist one, one which puts ideals above practicality.

So to answer your question, are Malthusians saying there's too many people, too few resources? Yes. But is the solution to be more creative with using resources or control consumption? Neither of these are particularly libertarian. What you will realise over history is, that people always demand more when they can. 100 years ago people did not complain that they only have one tv, one car, one house per household. Today people are not complaining they don't have a personal jet plane. But just wait when we CAN achieve that, people will start demanding that as "basic necessities".

Wait a minute, "100 years ago people did not complain that they only have one tv, one car, ........................." Huh? Just how many people do you think had a tv and car 100 years ago?

"High birth rate is indicative of two kinds of modern societies : socialist and poor."

Please show me a socialist society with a high birth rate of it's original demographic.

[onlyrp]

Wait a minute, "100 years ago people did not complain that they only have one tv, one car, ........................." Huh? Just how many people do you think had a tv and car 100 years ago?


A lot less than today, and nobody complained.



"High birth rate is indicative of two kinds of modern societies : socialist and poor."

Please show me a socialist society with a high birth rate of it's original demographic.

The US is the best example of a socialist pro-life policy. Whereas near any other country with high birth rate, are poor countries. By socialist I don't mean they give free healthcare and have high taxes, just that they don't force parents to pay for their own child, while the social pressure is to have children even when they know they're incapable.

[Origanalist]

A lot less than today, and nobody complained.


The US is the best example of a socialist pro-life policy. Whereas near any other country with high birth rate, are poor countries. By socialist I don't mean they give free healthcare and have high taxes, just that they don't force parents to pay for their own child, while the social pressure is to have children even when they know they're incapable.

I don't know what planet YOU were on, but on this one NOBODY had a tv 100 years ago, or even heard of one. And there were hardly any cars.


Are you saying there is pressure to have children in this country? From who?

[AlexMerced]

this conversation became pretty amusing, but I'm not saying the answer is either reducing consumption OR or increasing efficiency of consumption but that probably a combonation that we can't anticipate that will be discovered by voluntary arrangements in the market.

Centralized planned efficiency or consumption controls are both bad ideas in my book.

[Xhin]

Your video was painful to watch. I couldn't finish it. I understand the necessity of being politically correct about every little point, but in your case it just detracted from the message of the video.

In any case, I agree with you about overpopulation not being the real problem. Worldwide, the problem is that many countries are still under a form of pseudo-colonization, controlled by the interests of wealthier nations. This can take the form of either international corporations or governments sending military aid / attacking countries for one reason or another, but it's still the same basic thing. This serves to keep poorer nations poor and politically unstable, which has the effect of justifying outsourcing or military aid. It also makes overpopulation (or religion or even race) seem like the culprit.

[azxd]

The entitlement class is not bound by economics, fixates on worthless material things, then seeks fault in others to justify that which they desire.

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/128/8/AAAAAqAiq8cAAAAAASiH7A.pngis a great example of what is wrong with the save the environment group ... They'll complain about how man is messing everything up, but won't make the big sacrifice toward fixing what they see as the problem.

Sorry to pick on the greenies, but if all the groups who sit around and complain ... Did not exist ... The World IMO would be a better place, and it's resources while probably not used in a better way, would last longer, and thus the need for conflict over limited resources would also be diminished.

So do we have a population problem ?
We absolutely have a resource utilization problem, stupidity and greed will force it to become a population problem, and stylizing growth toward the current trends of Western civilization is the biggest problem.

Watch this series - http://www.youtube.com/show?p=dF9tP5oI9HY&tracker=show_av

[AlexMerced]

The entitlement class is not bound by economics, fixates on worthless material things, then seeks fault in others to justify that which they desire.

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/128/8/AAAAAqAiq8cAAAAAASiH7A.pngis a great example of what is wrong with the save the environment group ... They'll complain about how man is messing everything up, but won't make the big sacrifice toward fixing what they see as the problem.

Sorry to pick on the greenies, but if all the groups who sit around and complain ... Did not exist ... The World IMO would be a better place, and it's resources while probably not used in a better way, would last longer, and thus the need for conflict over limited resources would also be diminished.

So do we have a population problem ?
We absolutely have a resource utilization problem, stupidity and greed will force it to become a population problem, and stylizing growth toward the current trends of Western civilization is the biggest problem.

Watch this series - http://www.youtube.com/show?p=dF9tP5oI9HY&tracker=show_av

agreed

[PaulConventionWV]

I'll address what you said.

First, you are somewhat correct, we're not perfect in allocating resources, but it's usually a socialist complaint that we should, as if we owe anybody but ourselves anything. I am glad you are not one of those people who think life was better 100 years ago. Yes, we are definitely more resourceful, meaning more efficient and creative in using resources. This leads to the following "problems", when life is comfortable or cheap, people lose incentive to be responsible, frugal, and conserving. Therefore, people will either demand more, or have more children.

High birth rate is indicative of two kinds of modern societies : socialist and poor. If we had the pressure, responsibility as we held to people 100 years ago, we'd be less socialist in supporting irresponsible parents, and in turn, have a lower birth rate. A principly pro-life ideology is no different than a socialist one, one which puts ideals above practicality.

So to answer your question, are Malthusians saying there's too many people, too few resources? Yes. But is the solution to be more creative with using resources or control consumption? Neither of these are particularly libertarian. What you will realise over history is, that people always demand more when they can. 100 years ago people did not complain that they only have one tv, one car, one house per household. Today people are not complaining they don't have a personal jet plane. But just wait when we CAN achieve that, people will start demanding that as "basic necessities".

Alex is right on this one, but there is no solution. We just have to ride out the environment and deal with our own lives. ANYBODY who claims to have a solution to population problems is pushing something on you or just repeating what they heard. People who think overpopulation is a problem are usually victims of the propaganda that has been spread on this subject. There is no concrete evidence of anything presented, but we get a lot of slanted views of the subject most days of the week from the media. Those views happen to be slanted toward the negative and the fearmongering. I'm not saying the only purpose of the media is to promote negativity. There is an agenda, but it's not their agenda. The NWO is the problem, and overpopulation is just another socialist excuse.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, but people lived fine, didn't think it was a "right". But since we CAN have them today, it suddenly becomes a necessity.

I had to address this post. You cannot be serious with some of this stuff. You start off by making the exact point that HB34 made, the one you were responding to.


or existed at a price they couldn't afford. I bet even back then people were making up conspiracy theories about how the NWO is fixing prices to keep them poor. Today when TVs are cheap, they complain that they're using TV to indoctrinate slaves. If you don't have a TV somebody owes you one, because all the Joneses do. If you have a TV, then it's a conspiracy to keep you entertained.

First of all, the NWO can't "do" anything. The NWO is a concept, not a thing, person, or action. It can't "fix" anything. Secondly, do you deny the Federal Reserve is engaged in price fixing as well as inflation?


Indeed. Therefore efficiency of resource allocation will not solve anything, just like vacuum cleaners didn't reduce the work time of women, it only increased the demands of their husbands and employers.

I'm not going to argue that anything will solve a population "problem". Anyone who claims to have a solution to "too many people" has an agenda to push, and it ain't yours. I don't know why you are arguing with HB34 about resource allocation because he clarified a point that you made and you responded by making that exact same point. People didn't have access to the things they wanted, so it's not as simple as "people didn't want what they want now." Your point of people wanting more when they can have more is simply the result of lack of imagination. People back then had a demand for just as much of the resources, just not the same things that people want now, so you can't really compare two time periods.

[bolil]

I think we, as a race, have shown characteristics usually applied to bacteria or viruses... that is growth for the sake of growth. That being said, here we are and we need to make the best of it. It is no humans place to determine who lives or dies.

We are not good stewards of the planet. Although, maybe, one day, we could be. How can we be good stewards to the planet if we are not good stewards to ourselves? Step one: Human Liberty. Step two: Everything else. Simplistic, yes.

[ZenBowman]

Overpopulation is a symptom of statism.

[Domalais]

This leads to the following "problems", when life is comfortable or cheap, people lose incentive to be responsible, frugal, and conserving. Therefore, people will either demand more, or have more children.

High birth rate is indicative of two kinds of modern societies : socialist and poor. If we had the pressure, responsibility as we held to people 100 years ago, we'd be less socialist in supporting irresponsible parents, and in turn, have a lower birth rate.

I think you're completely off base.

1) Socialistic societies do not have high birth rates.

2) The reason that people in poor cultures have lots of children is because they aren't saving. With no savings or investments for retirement, family is the only thing you have to support you when you are elderly. The more children you have, the more likely it is that some of them will be successful. For cultures with high death and incarceration rates, this can require many children. Following the same logic, the reason that socialistic societies do not have high birth rates is because there is a sigificant safety net for the elderly that eliminates the need for children to support them in their old age.

[brandon]

Why don't you just type up what you want to say? I'm not going to watch a video of you talking to your webcam.

[Working Poor]

You would think with birth control and abortion that we would have a lot less people....it seems to have had the opposite effect though.

[Origanalist]

You would think with birth control and abortion that we would have a lot less people....it seems to have had the opposite effect though.

We use birth control and have abortions, the people jumping the border don't.

[onlyrp]

I don't know what planet YOU were on, but on this one NOBODY had a tv 100 years ago, or even heard of one. And there were hardly any cars.

Are you saying there is pressure to have children in this country? From who?

There is pressure to not abort babies when you are not ready, by pro-lifers. Whether they had 1 car or 1 tv or neither, doesn't change the fact they were not complaining.

[onlyrp]

First of all, the NWO can't "do" anything. The NWO is a concept, not a thing, person, or action. It can't "fix" anything. Secondly, do you deny the Federal Reserve is engaged in price fixing as well as inflation?


isn't the NWO an organization of highly powerful people who meet regularly to discuss their strategies?

[onlyrp]

Overpopulation is a symptom of statism.'

really? that means 3rd world countries have the lowest population and least misallocation of resources.

[onlyrp]

You would think with birth control and abortion that we would have a lot less people....it seems to have had the opposite effect though.

No, it doesn't have the opposite effect, we have equal access to both birth control and abortion as do European countries, and Asian developed countries (India being an exception, if it's to be a developed country). Why are they better are reducing population or managing poverty? Perhaps either because they are better educated, have higher self discipline, or have less religious fundamentalists getting in the way. The European countries which DO have a population problem, can thank their Muslim immigrants.

[thoughtomator]

there's not an overpopulation problem, there's an overgovernmentation problem

without bureaucrats wasting and destroying economic productivity we'd have cities on the Moon and Mars by now, and would be mining the immense mineral wealth of the asteroid belt

[Origanalist]

There is pressure to not abort babies when you are not ready, by pro-lifers. Whether they had 1 car or 1 tv or neither, doesn't change the fact they were not complaining.

I demand a transporter!

[Domalais]

without bureaucrats wasting and destroying economic productivity we'd have cities on the Moon and Mars by now, and would be mining the immense mineral wealth of the asteroid belt

Do you mean without government or without religion?

[AlexMerced]

there are transporters, just not perfected for living things.

Once that technology is mastered, expect birthrates and unemployment to drop extensively. Also women will become super extra picky since they'll have access to men all around the world, and vice versa. So better be improving your game.

[unknown]

Theres actually not:

Holy chit mang. Went to link a video from "nufffrespect"'s channel on youtube and its been deleted... WOW

[bossman068410]

Energy = Life ..... The more energy the more people this planet can handle. Think of it. Super cheap energy means limitless water from the oceans. Large building farms, housing, transportation, and food that can be produced at a significantly lower costs.

[azxd]

China has a goal to quadruple it's people's wealth and reduce it's energy demand by 50% over the next 20 years, and they have a plan in place that is allowing it to happen.

We have NO LEADER, or want to be leader, who promotes a vision for the future.

Stop blaming others, and look to the philosophical change that needs to occur ... Anything less is wasted energy and an attempt to blame others for the problems we face as a people upon this planet.

And contrary to popular belief, the United States is much more authoritarian than China, as it relates to the key items that need to change.

[azxd]

Energy = Life ..... The more energy the more people this planet can handle. Think of it. Super cheap energy means limitless water from the oceans. Large building farms, housing, transportation, and food that can be produced at a significantly lower costs.You are so utterly wrong, that I don't even know where to start.

Do you have any idea what limited resources actually are ?