A world of seven billion people like you

When the world’s population reaches seven billion in late October it should be a cause for immense celebration. Not only has the population increased seven-fold since 1800 but we have become enormously better off through economic growth and technological innovation. On average we live much longer, are taller, more intelligent (at least as measured by IQ), better fed and better educated. Among the technological wonders we have developed are air travel, cars, computers, contraceptive pills, dentistry, electricity, phones and washing machines.

Rather than bombard you with statistics, take just one. The average lifespan has increased from about 30 in 1800 to nearly 70 today. That is a global figure. It is perhaps the most striking single indicator of how life has improved for humanity during the era of rapid population growth.

Of course stark inequalities remain. The average life expectancy in Zimbabwe, for instance, is only 45. But, bad as that is, it is still much better than that for Britain in 1800. The life expectancy gap should also be taken as an argument to raise living standards in Zimbabwe, rather than to reduce them in the West.

If things have improved so much over the past two centuries it begs the question of why pessimism is so prevalent. Back in 1798 Thomas Malthus, an Anglican priest, famously argued that population growth would inevitably outstrip the food supply. As a result, overpopulation would be checked by mass starvation and war.

In the event, Malthus’s predications have proved hopelessly wrong. We have increased the food supply, and found countless other ways to improve our living standards, despite the rapid rise in population.

Yet Malthus’s contemporary heirs, proponents of green thinking, insist on making equally gloomy predictions. They argue that population growth, along with accompanying affluence, will inevitably lead to resource shortages and runaway climate change.

The reason they will be proved wrong, as long as we do not succumb to green pessimism, is that they underestimate human ingenuity. They see us as merely consumers while underestimating or even ignoring our creative power. Greens fail to recognise our capacity to produce more resources and to overcome difficult challenges.

Take a thought experiment to illustrate the point. Imagine two mice, one male and one female, in a laboratory. Every day the mice are fed 1kg of grain (evidently they prefer it to cheese).

For mice, and all other animals besides humans, the Malthusian model works. At first the mice will grow fat as they have ample food between them. But as the population grows they will find it increasingly difficult to feed themselves with just 1kg of grain. Eventually, some mice are likely to die of starvation, as the limited food supply brings their population into check.

But humans are different from mice in an important respect. We have the ability to produce more grain, rather than rely on what is available. Modern industrial agriculture has freed us from the Malthusian trap.

What is true of food applies to other resources. If we run short of oil, for example, there are several different measures we can take. We can use oil more efficiently, say by producing cars than do more miles per gallon, or discover new sources of oil. Or we can use alternative fuel sources such as turning coal into oil or using biofuels. We even have the option of using nuclear power to generate electricity that can be used to drive electric cars.

Our ingenuity can also be used to tackle climate change. There are plenty of energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases, including hydroelectric and nuclear power. We can also develop new technologies such as those for extracting carbon dioxide direct from the atmosphere.

The main thing holding us back is the mood of green gloom that has enveloped contemporary society. If we follow its lead, we will retreat into an intellectual bunker rather than boldly tackling the challenges we face.

Reaching a global population of seven billion should be a cause for joy. Seven billion consumers, it is true, and also seven billion producers, seven billion creators and seven billion problem solvers.

A world of seven billion people like you.

Throughout October and November, The Independent Online is partnering with the Institute of Ideas’ Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time.

Daniel Ben-Ami is a writer on economics and finance based in London. His personal website can be found at: http://danielbenami.com. He spoke at the Battle of Ideas Satellite session Is Greece ready for a dose of happiness? organised in partnership with the Hellenic American Union, which took place in Athens on Tuesday 25 October.

Recent Posts on Battle of Ideas

• An open letter to Melanie Phillips
• Privacy challenges ahead 2013
• Anders Breivik: Narcissist. Murderer. Insane?
• Free speech is the real loser in Terry v Ferdinand
• 'Abortion industry': A slur on the women who support their choice

• greggf

  “….6 to 7 billion in just 12 years…”

  I’m afraid Ben-Ami is another armchair scientist who cannot recognize exponential growth and its consequences.

• slimemold

  ” I wonder what the last survivor living on Easter Island would have thought…”
  He thought, as he cut down the last tree, needed  for boats as they were sailors and fishers: If I don’t cut it down Bill Bloggs up the road will do it.

• http://www.frontline-online.blogspot.com Mark Harrop

  Cue a lack of imagination, if not a grounding in reality, from commenters on this thread. It seems most here gloat about demise rather than celebrate humanity’s achievements and the huge possibility to extend ever further.

  Cull Malthusians!

• BHarley

  It is estimated that it takes one acre of arable land to feed one human for one year.
  If the World’s population is increasing by one person per second, are we adding one acre of arable land per second for food production?

• BHarley

  The dirty little secret about optimists and pessimists is their astronomical ability to ignore reality.
  For each and every human achievement there are costs (cause and effect, no free lunch, bang for your buck, First Law of Thermodynamics, etc). These costs, whether they be economic, societal, environmental, what have you, are nearly always disregarded and left for future generations to deal with.
  One example : human use of fossil fuels for achievement/progress. The optimist would say, “What a wonderful discovery! Look how many products we can produce and consume! Look how many people our planet can now sustain!” The pessimist would say, “Look at all this pollution! Look how some countries exploit lesser countries in the name of oil energy!”
  I ask you. What is the reality here?

• http://www.frontline-online.blogspot.com Mark Harrop

  Unfortunately for misanthropes humanity overall tends to be remarkably ingenious; fortunately, for the rest of us, that means we can look forward to increasing our impact on the planet and that future generations can carry on the forward march of human progress. 

  One example: fossil fuels have dramatically increased the activity and range of humanity so that we can advance much further and faster than our bodies would otherwise allow – even into space. 

  Peak oil? – cue biofuels from algae and air capture (amongst others) and thus we may confidently drain our half empty glasses and constantly replenish them.

  Your latter point is probably more revealing than you intended in that dominant countries have mostly lost their way – hence the rise of pessimism. With the rise of the east and unconditional loans to developing countries it could well be the case that rather than the likes of China propping up ailing western economies we can look forward to better developments in regions previously kept poor.

• http://www.frontline-online.blogspot.com Mark Harrop

  In developed countries vast surpluses in agricultural production have led to more land being set aside – unfortunately, not for much needed housing . . 

• BHarley

  Why is the ingenuity of Man unfortunate for misantropes?
  And you are making my point for me… you say, “fortunately, for the rest of us, that means we can look forward to increasing our impact on the planet…” We ARE having an impact on the planet, and optimists (evidently you are one) totally, egotistically and otherwise arrogantly ignore any of the ill effects. You focus on what you think is the main and evidently sole reason fossil fuels were ever put into use by Man. “…so that we can advance much further and faster…”. Really? Is that the point of fossil fuel usage? Are you a “means justifies the ends” kinda guy? Some of the costs of oil production and usage include pollution, wars, death, destruction, etc. So, we put a man on the moon. Wonderful! Great achievement – no argument. Could we not have accomplished the same feat with causing so much death, destruction and suffering along the way??
  Dominant countries have mostly lost their way – because their practices are unsustainable.
  I wholeheartedly agree with you – hopefully we can look forward to better develoments in regions previously kept poor.

• http://www.frontline-online.blogspot.com Mark Harrop

  Human ingenuity is unfortunate for misanthropes by definition – misanthropes have a dislike for humanity. I’ll accept a disappointment in some of our activities but these can be determined in the social realm and principally that of politics.

  Previously dominant countries have lost their way because they embrace sustainability. 

• BHarley

  True, misanthropes have a dislike for humanity. But, why? I wonder if the misanthrope dislikes humanity because so many humans succumb so easily to ignorance or arrogance or one or more of the seven deadly sins for example? Maybe the misanthrope wouldn’t dislike humanity as much if more humans displayed honorable traits such as ingenuity used for the common good.

  Confining your “disappointment in some of our activities to the social realm and principally that of politics” merely strengthens my point. Humans are defined as social creatures. Nearly everything we humans do is social. And politics is in almost everything humans do. The very definition of politics:the total complex of relations between people living in society.

  I couldn’t disagree more with your assertion that previously dominant countries have lost their way because they embrace sustainability. The rise and fall of civilizations and countries is a study in unsustainable practices. Rome:Christianity, decadence, lead, monetary trouble, and military problems. Ancient Greece(as well as many others):hegemony. British Empire:slavery, administering to over a quarter of the globe. Napoleonic France:military overreach. Libya:despotism. To list but a few.