Whether or not the population is declining doesn't mean we should wantonly start to have new kids. The show Baby Borrowers on NBC clearly demonstrates the difficulties in baby rearing. it's not for everybody.

I think the standard argument is "this time it is different". But besides "common sense", there is no support for this argument.

Given that the earth and its resources are limited (though we could, of course, recycle much more efficiently), just look at the rate of species extinctions caused primarily by human destruction of habitat. We have no realistic expectation of population growth stopping before it hits about ten billion. To argue that even more would be okay is pretty insane. What's the limit then? Fifteen billion? Twenty? Unless you deny the limitation of the finite planet, then it comes down to what number you pick. I'll pick "less than ten billion."

"If Thomas Malthus really was wrong, as Jacoby confidently asserts, we'll find out soon enough."

Er, Malthus wasn't predicting for the 21st century. The Malthusian catastrophe, like the Population Bomb, the Club of Rome etc have already passed their predictions, and are well known to BE wrong.

It's strange, but a bit of reading on this topic indicates that economics seems to go counter to common sense some times. So while it is so patently "obvious" to everybody that the same resources being divided by smaller number of people should lead to more goodies for everybody -- there isn't really any valid argument that disputes the assertion in the referenced article that there more humans now than ever, and the quality of life is better than ever. The same could be said for any particular period in the past at least since stone ages -- there were more humans on earth than ever before, and the quality of life was better than ever before.

In 1800's, there were more humans on earth than ever before. The qualify of life was better than ever before. Ditto 1700's, ditto 1600's.

I think the standard argument is "this time it is different". But besides "common sense", there is no support for this argument.

In the inimitable conservative debate style the quoted author has been somewhat less than honest. When have we ever had a depopulation that wasn't caused by something like a war or the Black Death or some other tragedy that wiped out a lot of people? When have we ever had a depopulation that was planned and orderly? When? The present Chinese society comes to mind where the one baby per family has almost arrested the population growth. Of course we all know that China is a backwards, third world society that will never be of any importance economically or politically, right?

Some day a conservative will actually say something reasonable that has been thought out and considered based on reality, not just some sort of talking point that is distorted to serve the agenda. On that day, Gabriel will blow his trumpet, the Zambonis in hell will have to work overtime, and lots of naked people will go flying through the air.

I detest these theocon arguments to make more babies, and it's all I can do to refrain from ad hominem attacks when I read such tripe. Too often it's a thinly-veiled alarm being sounded not because there are too few people but because there are too few white people. That and their need for cannon fodder, of course. If the standard of living depends on ever-increasing population, as this writer moronically alleges, then it's time to figure out a different socioeconomic system because the earth—sorry to break it to you—is finite. Gee, Pittsburgh has only half as many students as it used to? Well good, maybe they can close their lousiest schools and maintain the rest of them that much better, and start paying their teachers more (not to knock Pittsburgh, I'm just using his example). That articles like this are making it past the editors at all is a tribute to our general decline in critical thinking skills of the populace. Gee, we'd better have more kids to fix that too. We need more smart people! Won't someone please think of the children?!?

"B-b-b-but our whole world view is based on stepping on the pedal harder as we approach that concrete wall! Don't you fucking stupid idiots understand???"

"Do the numbers. At the current 1.159% population growth rate, the mass of human flesh will equal the mass of all life on Earth in 960 year."

I don't have the figure handy for the weight of the planet (not just the life on it, the entire planet), but I recall that with a doubling time of 50 years, and assuming some reasonably order-of-magnitude value for a human (say, 75 kg?) , I think you get to the absurd situation of the weight of all humans equalling the weight of the Earth in about 500 years.

The point remains that obviously, that's not what's going to happen, and Stein's Law needs to be invoked: things that can't continue forever, don't.

"Every day there are 210,000 more human souls than the previous day."

H'm, I think we may at this point be running a bit short of souls, so that an increasing number of the humans born now have to get along without one. Might explain a few things.

Re: taxes.

You argue that the tax burden is going up in Europe in order to support entitlements for a larger retirement community on the shoulders of a smaller working community.

Which would make sense, except that it's not true.

I haven't felt like doing a whole lot of research into this, and the most recent thing that I could find in less than 5 minutes was from 2004 - click my name for the link.

In essence the report says that tax rates worldwide are going down, and most dramatically in Europe.

I remember being profoundly horrified after reading "The Handmade's Tale", then watching with increasing anxiety as the Bush regime made religion a political issue. I know the movie wasn't a big money-maker, but I went ahead and put it in my Net-Flix queue anyway. It's now sitting at home waiting for me. And I'm afraid to watch it...