Why is population growth so often assumed to be a good thing? Is economic well-being really dependant on it? Here's a little article on CNN about the latest US County data on population [LINK HERE]. The language the article uses makes out population growth to be some kind of competition - with a county in Florida proclaimed the "winner". The article refers to a county in Georgia as having the "dubious distinction" of losing the most people.
The Economist recently laid out a pretty good article [3P Report Here] that argues pretty well that well-being of any kind ought not have anything to do with population growth. And, everyone is aware of the problems that rapid growth bring. I hope that in the future we'll have a slightly saner way of looking at this sort of thing and see fewer articles like the CNN one referenced above.
| Share |
Maybe it's because population growth equals more influence in presidential elections and Congress?
I wonder if it's like a popularity contest -- You know, with people ostensibly moving to places that're nicer to live in...
There's no consistent way to "grow the GNP" each year without more people. But when's the last time you heard someone question the need for growing the GNP? They think it's an immutable law.
There's also the sick idea that paving more land is good because housing-starts are a leading economic indicator. The construction industry thrives on overpopulation.
Most of what we call economic growth in modern nations is linked to more labor and more consumption. The whole system is a pyramid scheme and people just nod along. Economists need to speak up and tell everyone that real per-capita wealth decreases with more hogs at the trough.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.triplepundit.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1539
From Delicious » del.icio.us / population+growth / population / demographics / economics
From Technorati »population+growth / population / demographics / economics /
July 4
July 4
July 3
July 3
July 3
July 3
July 3
July 3
