A few thoughts on overpopulation and increasing food prices

With cries of food shortages now being heard in many third world countries, the West is likely to be expected to once again step in with food aid to ameliorate the crisis. But this could well result in making the situation worse.

While the recent surge in commodity prices may spell trouble for the millions of third world poor living in overcrowded cities, it's actually good news for many third world farmers, who form the backbone of the economy in most developing countries. Subsequently, if the West responds by aiding third world countries with food aid, as it has done in the past, it may well drive down the price of locally produced grain and impoverish local farmers.

This is why population control is so essential in many developing countries. Most poor countries have a large non-production population which serves as both a break on development, and a major headache for cash-strapped third world governments trying to establish basic infrastructure.

In the past, nature had a rather brutal, but effective means of getting rid of surplus humans and making room for new development - famine. In a particularly dramatic example, a recent international genetics project claims modern humans almost became extinct 70,000 years ago ("When humans came closest to extinction," The Press, Saturday, April 26).

According to the Genographic Project, the human population crashed from around 10,000 - 100,000 people to just 2000, following ice age related climate change which made Africa cooler and drier. However, the Project's director, Spencer Wells, says this population crisis ultimately became a major stimulus for human development:

"A shift in culture began. People began making better hunting tools they needed to survive the drought. Art makes its appearance. There is abstract thought."

Another such stimulus, occurred in Europe during the 14th Century, following massive depopulation caused by the Black Death. With a sudden and profound labour shortage, workers wages increased, feudalism began to breakdown and the development and uptake of labour saving technology, such as horse-drawn ploughs and water mills began in earnest. This labour-shortage-fueled technology stimulus went on to became a major factor in the technological supremacy of Europe and its colonies from 1500 through to the present day.

It's seems that population control plays a vital role in human development, but how then can human numbers be controlled without massive human suffering?

Many liberals argue that people will naturally have fewer children as they become more educated and affluent. But that is putting the cart before the horse. People can't become more affluent if they are too numerous to be able to command increasing wages for their labour, or authorities are unwilling or unable to educate them.

The most humane option, and one which is in the best interests of rich and poor countries, seems to be managed population control through such measures as family planning, contraceptives, and economic incentives. Hopefully the end of the Bush presidency this year will signal a resurgence of interest in funding for population control programmes.

Housing affordability and economic inequality

Listening to a talk-radio discussion last week about housing affordability in NZ, I was a little taken aback by how few people seemed to think it was a problem.

The dominant view seems to be that low rates of home ownership is not a big issue and most young people deserve to be renting due to their preference for wasting money on gadgets and other distractions.

This got me thinking about how unconcerned many people today are with economic equality, as opposed to other kinds of inequality, and why this might be so. Then it dawned on me, most people today, are conservative on economic issues because they have grown up in an environment where the majority of families have been able to afford their own homes and cars without the need to rent or borrow, thus they don't know what its like to grow up without property and the accompanying insecurity.

Property ownership gives people a stake in their society and therefore a reason to support the status quo. Steve Sailer has pointed out that one of the reasons why socialism has never really taken-off in the US is because it's traditionally been a 'cheap land, high wage' country where most people could afford their own house and many of the trappings of middle-class life.

Until very recently, it's been the same story in this part of the world. Anyone with a steady wage, and who was reasonably frugal, could afford to get on the property ladder, so there was little reason why most young people who have been bought up in such a society should have much of a concern for concepts like economic equality.

Critics may argue that declining rates of home ownership largely reflect work and lifestyle choices, with more people going on working holidays and marrying later. Sure there is some truth in this, some people actually don't want to be burdened by real estate, but it's not as if levels of savings and other investments are increasing either. The share-market is stuck in an ongoing rut, personal savings rates are mediocre, fewer people are buying art and antiques, and in NZ there is no compulsory retirement savings scheme as is in Australia. New Zealanders who aren't able to get a foot on the property ladder aren't likely to save much money period.

Then of course rents aren't that cheap either. The traditional rule of thumb for young renters, here and elsewhere, was don't spend more than a quarter of your income on accommodation, but this is now almost impossible for non-skilled workers in the main centres, and many two-income families would struggle to find a reasonable 3 bedroom bungalow with a rental that was less than a third of their income.

Something else that irks me is the way that so many people think its ok, that hard-working people should have to spend so much of their money on rent or mortgage repayments, who particularly wants to reward banks and property speculators?

If they had been talk radio back in 1900, back incidentally, when New Zealand was the richest in the world per capita, I doubt many of the callers would have been so selfish or apathetic.

In Edwardian New Zealand producerism was close to godliness and property speculators had about the same social status as gypsy pick pockets.

Nice to see we have progressed towards a more enlightened age where ripping-off your fellow citizens is rewarded rather than criticised.