Until we have the resources to properly feed and educate all our children, we should not worry that we are having too few.
My letter in the New York Times
The New York Times has just published my letter responding to a guest essay (op-ed) by Michael Geruso and Dean Spears, with whom I’ve been engaging on the question of pro-natalism. Here’s the text
The authors of this essay argue that a large and growing world population is the path to solving humanity’s pressing problems with examples of innovation in medicine, engineering and science that only “a big world could produce.”
In the world as it stands, this is not true. Hundreds of millions of children, particularly girls in poor countries, miss out on the basic education needed to have any chance of realizing their potential. Even in rich countries, access to the university education needed to become a scientist or an engineer (or, for that matter, an economist) is unavailable to many. The more children we have, the harder the task of educating them.
The central reason for declining birthrates is that, as potential parents, most of us have decided that putting a lot of effort into raising one or two children is better than spreading those efforts over three, four or more. What is true for individual families is true for the world as a whole. Until we have the resources to properly feed and educate all our children, we should not worry that we are having too few.
Follow me on Bluesky or Mastodon
Read my comic book presentation of The Perils of Privatisation. Paid subscribers get a free physical copy.
Read my newsletter
John, I’d love to get your take on this “abundance agenda.” My take is that it’s complete nonsense. I would put to you that we already have “abundance”, both in this country and even in the world. The problem is that too few have far too much and too many have far too little. This problem also occurs at a global scale. Instead of writing a book called “abundance”, perhaps they could write a book called “redistribution.” It should the intellectual vacuity of the ALP that they’re clutching this book. I mean the notion that be relaxing all planning laws will solve the housing crisis is hogwash. We’re always talking about “planning laws” here in Victoria and I am sure every other state and territory. But developers are sitting on thousands of approved dwellings. So it’s not the planning laws that are the problem, but the amazing forces of capital that Klein and Thompson say will be our saviour. Also interesting that Mandami and his more interventionist ideas seem to be an another current.
I believe that Homo Sapiens deserves no more usage of this planet than, say the other great apes.
Our current plans of destruction look as though all large animals, including ourselves, will be totally wiped out in the next few centuries.
The current rate of increase of global temperature looks unstoppable now.
Bye!
Peter Smith.