Why don’t you think normal market mechanisms (the more scarce resource X is, the higher its price, the larger the incentives to use less, the more intense search for its replacement) will handle the problem?
Markets are a mechanism of resource allocation. They can be quite efficient sometimes, and fail spectacularly some other times, but in any case they don’t create new resources out of thin air.
Even in our present era of relative abundance, there are many people who die of starvation, epidemic diseases and violent conflict. In a future with scarcer resources and higher population, how are the markets going to handle the problem that they aren’t unable to handle now?
there are many people who die of starvation, epidemic diseases and violent conflict
That’s a cute switcheroo.
The original issue was scarcity of resources leading to an “overshoot”—population spiking past resource constraints and then crashing back hard. I said that the markets allocate resources pretty well and there doesn’t seem to be an obvious reason why would they fail in this particular case.
No one claimed that the markets will magically solve “starvation, epidemic diseases and violent conflict”. It’s rather obvious that they don’t—but that’s an entirely separate discussion.
So, just to be clear, your position is that markets will prevent population growth from stopping in the foreseable future or that population will gracefully set at the capacity level without violent oscillations?
My position is that there is no alternative that you can credibly show to be better than the markets in dealing with the issue of resource scarcity.
Markets do not “prevent population growth from stopping”. As to the gracefulness of landing, it’s for the gymnastics judges to estimate. By the way, I do not expect the population to reach the “capacity level” in the foreseeable future.
Here’s what I expect someone who seriously believed that markets will handle it would sound like:
“Wow, overpopulation is a threat? Clearly there are inefficiencies the rest of the market is too stupid to exploit. Let’s see if I can get rich by figuring out where these inefficiencies are and how to exploit them.”
Whereas “the markets will handle it, period, full stop” is not a belief, it’s an excuse.
My position is that there is no alternative that you can credibly show to be better than the markets in dealing with the issue of resource scarcity.
I don’t think anybody (but the most extreme leftists) is proposing a Soviet-like centrally planned economy, but without regulation, markets mechanisms alone don’t necessarily deal well with resource scarcity. This has been both observed empirically and understood theoretically (tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, etc.)
By the way, I do not expect the population to reach the “capacity level” in the foreseeable future.
Why not? Growth rate is already in decline, and AFAIK, most models of world population growth predict a peak in this century.
Well, markets don’t exist in a vacuum, of course, they need a reasonable framework of law and order. Just to start with you need property rights and the ability to enforce contracts.
tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, etc.
That’s a different thing that doesn’t have much to do with the markets ability to deal with resource scarcity.
You keep pointing out that markets are not Jesus and they don’t automagically solve all humanity’s problems. Yes, yes, of course, but no one is arguing that. We’re talking about a fairly specific problem—dealing with resource scarcity—and you keep on bringing up how markets don’t solve violence and pollution...
Why not?
I expect the population to reach a plateau and stabilize at some point. I do not expect that plateau to be the capacity level of the planet.
Markets are a mechanism of resource allocation. They can be quite efficient sometimes, and fail spectacularly some other times, but in any case they don’t create new resources out of thin air.
Even in our present era of relative abundance, there are many people who die of starvation, epidemic diseases and violent conflict. In a future with scarcer resources and higher population, how are the markets going to handle the problem that they aren’t unable to handle now?
That’s a cute switcheroo.
The original issue was scarcity of resources leading to an “overshoot”—population spiking past resource constraints and then crashing back hard. I said that the markets allocate resources pretty well and there doesn’t seem to be an obvious reason why would they fail in this particular case.
No one claimed that the markets will magically solve “starvation, epidemic diseases and violent conflict”. It’s rather obvious that they don’t—but that’s an entirely separate discussion.
So, just to be clear, your position is that markets will prevent population growth from stopping in the foreseable future or that population will gracefully set at the capacity level without violent oscillations?
My position is that there is no alternative that you can credibly show to be better than the markets in dealing with the issue of resource scarcity.
Markets do not “prevent population growth from stopping”. As to the gracefulness of landing, it’s for the gymnastics judges to estimate. By the way, I do not expect the population to reach the “capacity level” in the foreseeable future.
Here’s what I expect someone who seriously believed that markets will handle it would sound like:
“Wow, overpopulation is a threat? Clearly there are inefficiencies the rest of the market is too stupid to exploit. Let’s see if I can get rich by figuring out where these inefficiencies are and how to exploit them.”
Whereas “the markets will handle it, period, full stop” is not a belief, it’s an excuse.
Here is what I sound like:
“Wow, overpopulation is a threat? I don’t believe it. Show me.”
I don’t think anybody (but the most extreme leftists) is proposing a Soviet-like centrally planned economy, but without regulation, markets mechanisms alone don’t necessarily deal well with resource scarcity. This has been both observed empirically and understood theoretically (tragedy of the commons, negative externalities, etc.)
Why not? Growth rate is already in decline, and AFAIK, most models of world population growth predict a peak in this century.
Well, markets don’t exist in a vacuum, of course, they need a reasonable framework of law and order. Just to start with you need property rights and the ability to enforce contracts.
That’s a different thing that doesn’t have much to do with the markets ability to deal with resource scarcity.
You keep pointing out that markets are not Jesus and they don’t automagically solve all humanity’s problems. Yes, yes, of course, but no one is arguing that. We’re talking about a fairly specific problem—dealing with resource scarcity—and you keep on bringing up how markets don’t solve violence and pollution...
I expect the population to reach a plateau and stabilize at some point. I do not expect that plateau to be the capacity level of the planet.
Well, they should provide a constructive alternative to the former, and the latter is isomorphous with a scarcity of non-polluted air/water/land.