Cafe Hayek

Optimal Population?

In his new book, Common Wealth, Jeffrey Sachs expresses his concern about population growth.  Worried by a U.N. prediction that global population will rise to 9.2 billion by the year 2050, from 6.6 billion today, Sachs says (on page 23 of his new book) the following about these additional 2.6 billion persons:

I will argue at some length that this is too many people to absorb safely, especially since most of the population increase is going to occur in today’s poorest countries.  We should be aiming….to stabilize the world’s population at 8 billion by midcentury.

(HT Karol Boudreaux)

Eight billion.  I'm not sure where Sachs got that number.  And, to be frank, I'm not curious about where he got it.  He could have dreamed it up in his sleep, or taken it from a multi-year study conducted by a lavishly funded committee made up of the world's most accomplished economists, demographers, environmentalists, statisticians, physicians, and other Very Smart Experts.  No matter where the number comes from, it's worthless.  There is simply no way to know how many persons the earth can "support" in the year 2050 (or any other year, for that matter).

First is the question: support at what standard of living?  Even if we grant the validity of the resources-are-very-tightly-limited supposition (upon which fear of population growth chiefly rests), there is no objective, scientifically determinable "optimal" number of people who can be alive at any one time.  According to the resources-are-very-tightly-limited supposition, the less that people consume, the greater are the amounts of resources that will be left for the future -- the greater is the earth's carrying capacity.  In this view, resources are simply 'out there,' waiting to be gathered, processed, and consumed by humans.  So more humans (or the same number of humans consuming more) will deplete resources faster than will fewer humans (or the same number of humans consuming less).

So on this resources-are-very-tightly-limited supposition, as people decrease their material standard of living, the earth can sustain a larger population.

How do we know today at what average standard of living persons alive in 2050 will seek to achieve?  We don't.  It's conceivable that the typical person alive in 2050 will have become so devoted to saving the earth that the prevalent culture and norms will dictate that most persons settle for material living standards lower than those that ordinary Americans enjoy today -- or, perhaps even lower than ordinary Americans enjoyed in 1950.  If so, then surely the "optimal" global population in the year 2050 will be lower than it would be if most persons alive in 2050 will seek to achieve living standards much higher than ordinary Americans now enjoy.

A much deeper problem with Sachs's eight-billion number is that, in calculating it, there is no way to predict how human creativity will alter the world during the next 42 years.  It's ludicrous to pretend that we can know now what, say, the average MPG will be for internal-combustion engines in 2050.  Hell, we don't even know if automobiles and lawnmowers and the like will still use such engines then.

Will another Norman Borlaug arise, between now and 2050, to spark another green revolution?  Will someone invent a way to efficiently power automobiles with air?  Will someone develop new and better techniques for defining and enforcing private property rights in ocean-going fish stocks so that the tragedy of the commons called "over-fishing" is eliminated?  Will an enterprising entrepreneur invent a means for ordinary households to power their homes with mulch or autumn leaves or small fragments of fingernail clippings?

Think back 42 years to 1966.  Who in that year imagined personal computers in nearly every home in America?  The Internet?  Digital cameras?  Cell phones?  Quality wines sold in screw-top bottles?  Buying music with literally the click of a button (and not having to burn fossil fuels in driving to the record store).  Aluminum cans that contain only a fraction of the metal that cans contained back then?  The Kindle (that will reduce the number of trees cut down to enable people to read books)?  Medical advances that make hip-replacements about as routine as getting cavities filled by the dentist?  Microfiber?

There is no way -- literally, no way -- to know how technology and social institutions will change between now and 2050.  Given this impossibility -- and given the fact that we can nevertheless predict with confidence that technology will advance and that social institutions will change -- to assert that "optimal" population in the year 2050 will be eight-billion persons is ludicrous in the extreme.  It's faux-science, and deserves only ridicule.

Nano Technology

In today's Washington Post is this report about how terrible it is that countless more Indians will be able to afford automobiles now that Tata has introduced its Nano, priced at $2,500.   Chief among the laments, of course, is the fact that such prosperity will result in the creation of more greenhouse gases.  (But Mira Kamdar, the author, rather inconsistently also frets that such an inexpensive car might further diminish the U.S. auto industry.)

For a much more clear-headed assessment of what the Nano means for ordinary Indians, read this blog post by Barun Mitra.  Here are some key paragraphs:

Not surprisingly, there are many who have expressed concerns about the prospect of the masses accessing personal automobiles. The issues they raise range from the impact on oil prices and a concern for global warming, to traffic congestion. Most such commentators have not been known to eschew their personal automobiles, or other modern conveniences, but have no qualms in frowning upon the masses enjoying some of the same benefits. This desire to keep others off the life-boats of their standard of living is a common feature of many who claim to have social or environmental concern in their hearts. One fact worth reminding them of is that transportation is one of the biggest expenses faced by rural poor seeking health care.

 The opposition to Nano is also an illustration of the head-in-the-sand mind-set, which pits rising demand for consumption against environmental conservation.

In fact, as more Indians are able to afford more cars, the scale of consumption will help improve the technology, improve efficiency and clean up the environment. It is not a coincidence, that Toyota's ascent up the world auto league has been accompanied by its pioneering efforts in new technologies and innovation. Though counter-intuitive, it is true of most areas of enterprise that only enhanced scales of consumption lead to improvement in efficiency - in this case, easily measured by tail-pipe emission. It is worth noting that while Toyota sold well over 9 million vehicles in 2007, Tata Motors took ten years to sell its millionth passenger car.

Jibbitzing in the Prosperity Pool

Earlier this month, Karol and Thomas and I vacationed at our favorite vacation spot: Cape Cod.

While there, Thomas and I bought our first pairs of Crocs.  They're wonderful shoes for casual wear.  The woman who sold them to us told us about something that we'd never before heard of: Jibbitz.  Jibbitz are little decorations that fit into any one of the many holes featured on each pair of Crocs.  These tiny items are mostly ornamental -- allowing each Croc wearer to express his or her individuality -- but they also are functional, for they can help to identify one pair of Crocs from another.

(Neither Thomas nor I wanted any Jibbitz, by the way.)

The fascinating thing about Jibbitz, though, is that the inventor turned this idea into a business that he and his wife sold for $20 million.  What a  wonderful outcome!

Note that this invention isn't high-tech -- it's about as simple as simple can be.  Yet it is indeed something that enough consumers choose to buy at prices that make the product profitable to produce.

Jibbitz -- another few drops of prosperity in our vast Prosperity Pool.

Wonderful world

Monday's EconTalk podcast will be with David Weinberger who has many interesting things to say about the way we use the web to organize information, based on his book, Everything is Miscellaneous. Here is a new way that is so beautiful (HT: Michael Cannon). The world we can explore on the web is going to become much more amazing very soon.

Young entrepreneurs

Tyler, writing in the New York Times, finds a silver lining in America's mediocre education system and makes some interesting observations about teenagers and entrepreneurship:

The longstanding criticism of the American school system is that even in the better schools, too many students just “get by” rather than engage in a rigorous curriculum. This academic leniency is bad for many average or subpar students, but it also allows some students to flourish. Relatively loose family structures have similar effects; American children are especially likely to be working on their own projects, rather than being directed by parents and elders.

Compared with those in other countries, American children play a much more influential role in society and enjoy a remarkable degree of autonomy. American fast food, with its fatty, sweet and bland tastes, is geared toward children, as are many American movies and television shows. Teenagers receive higher allowances, have greater access to credit cards, and have more money to spend on culture, or, in some cases, to spend on starting a business. American labor markets are flexible enough to create a large number of jobs at the lower end of the wage scale. Teenagers are more likely to acquire work experience, and they are more likely to earn a small amount of capital for financing a start-up enterprise.