In support of their position, proponents of population control have put forward hundreds of alleged threats to the earth. Since each of these proposed threats is allegedly serious, each threat gets substantial publicity on its news value alone. This publicity is enhanced by many in the media who themselves have acted as advocates of population control. Each new threat announced by advocates of population control requires time to both research and answer. For this reason there are almost always some threats that have not yet been shown to be totally without scientific merit.
Nevertheless, every allegedly scientific argument of the proponents of population control, previously accepted as “scientific truth” by a majority of the public, has within ten years been shown to be without merit and not based on sound science. The number of population-related threats claimed by population control advocates complicates this controversy, injecting a vast amount of detail.
Nearly everything that the general public thought they knew ten years ago about why population control was needed was the exact opposite of what was actually happening.
Everyone “knew”:
- There was a food problem that would soon get worse due to the fast population growth rate.
Instead, the food production per person has increased by an amazing 60% since 1948 and the UN experts say we can additionally increase food production as much as needed.
- We were going to run out of petroleum and other energy supplies within a few years.
Instead, there is a glut of petroleum and technology has shown us how to vastly increase the bountiful supply at an apparently lower cost.
- We were going to run out of important minerals because there were too many people.
Instead, we have more of every mineral than we had before or can use and technology is enabling us to increase the supply so quickly and cheaply that prices are depressed.
- As the population increased, we were going to run out of space.
Instead, the amount of land needed for human needs, including cropland, has remained substantially unchanged or decreased in many recent years and forest area has remained substantially the same or increased.
- There were too many babies and vastly greater numbers of babies were soon coming.
Instead, the number of babies has been decreasing since about 1985 and the number of young people who will be tomorrow’s workers is also decreasing.
- The population was growing too fast.
Instead, the number of young people is decreasing. Population is still growing for a little while, but only because increasing life expectancy has permitted more old people to live longer. World population decline with an aged population lurks in our future.
- More people meant more pollution.
Instead, every country can clean up.
- A global warming disaster was coming.
Instead, the best measures of earth’s atmospheric temperature show no substantial global warming attributable to human causes.
- More people would destroy quality of life.
Instead, quality of life seems to improve as population increases.
