Log in

View Full Version : population growth



redcannon
15th August 2007, 02:43
I was just thinking to myself about how much a problem overpopulation could be, and then a thought hit. Would it be bad for capitalism?
More People=More Market. Even though it would be hell for the majority of people on the planet, I think it could only benefit wealthy capitalists.

When there is more of a demand for food, then there is more money flowing for agricultural companies. When there is a higher demand for clothing with more people on the planet, production of such clothing would stimulate Global Capital.

As I said before, overpopulation would be terrible for most people on the earth because of less resources to go around, but I think it would be great for Capitalism, which leads me to another question. Do capitalists in power encourage population growth? In their own ways of course that would be unapparent to those who don't look carefully. But if it would be to their advantage, why wouldn't they?

Tower of Bebel
15th August 2007, 09:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:43 am
Do capitalists in power encourage population growth? In their own ways of course that would be unapparent to those who don't look carefully. But if it would be to their advantage, why wouldn't they?
Capitalists do not encourage population growth. Only fascists have done this so far, but not the capitalists themselves.
It's not in the advantages for anyone today. When you say capitalists, then I think you mean global population growth. We already have enough.


More People=More Market. Even though it would be hell for the majority of people on the planet, I think it could only benefit wealthy capitalists.

If you say market, then this must be labor market because most people are not consumers but laborers.


When there is more of a demand for food, then there is more money flowing for agricultural companies. When there is a higher demand for clothing with more people on the planet, production of such clothing would stimulate Global Capital.

This sounds malthusian. During the 18th century there was, in some regions like the Low Countries, Northern France and England, a population growth because of more agricultural produce. The population growth made it necessairy to keep this produce at the same level.
Yet, most of these people who were born during this growth became workers in facotries (or manufactures in France). they needed the surplus badly because they didn't produce food for themselves. Yet nobody invested in agriculture. But the only place where they did was England. Why? Because on the Continent the aristicracy was in power and formed a social barrier to keep their privilieges safe. In England this barrier had already been broken during the so called Glorious Revolution.

So, you have to look to capitalism today and ask yourself if capitalists will invest or not in agriculture when the population grows. I think not, because - for instance - in Africa you see that although the population grows steadily, nobody invests in these small farmers and no one even thinks to make profit out of it. The multinaltionals in the third world are already profitable, as there is lots of cheap labor fleeing the countryside. Would capitalists like to invest in agriculture when they already make enough prodit from their compagnies where thousands of poor black workers work for low wages? It's a social barrier, and to brake this is not a bourgeois revolution, the bourgeoisie is far to weak over there, it's a socialists revolution.


As I said before, overpopulation would be terrible for most people on the earth because of less resources to go around

It's not the population that spoils our resources, it's capitalism. People always want to make sure resources are not depleted to ensure their children's future. Capitalists want to make sure that their profits rise.
If the population in the West would grow rapidly, I think the living standards would go down as it's already hard for many workers to keep social security healthy with all these people getting old and having to live from a pension. [The capitalists pay less for social security today than when they did 10 years ago. Half of the national produced wealth goes back to the capitalists, not the state, social security or the people! If the population in Europe grows, I don't think the capies would say: "hey, we will help you out".

I already hear leftists say: they steal most of the wealth i produce for them, so I don't want to work and live from social security. It is true that you do not get a loan according to even half of what you workerd for in many cases. Yet, that does not mean you have to put more pressure on social security.]

Vanguard1917
15th August 2007, 16:48
As I said before, overpopulation would be terrible for most people on the earth because of less resources to go around

This is based on a Malthusian understanding of population growth: the earth's resources are fixed and population is the key variable. Therefore, according to this view, more people must mean a greater drain on resources. People are seen primarily as consumers rather than producers, and are presented as problems rather than problem-solvers.

In reality, of course, we can't talk of 'resources' as though they are a pre-given, fixed quantity that exist outside of human beings. Resources acquire meaning through human society, which is subject to historical development. For example, for the majority of societies throughout history, uranium and bauxite weren't considered resources. They became resources at a certain stage of historical and technological development. On the other hand, coal, which was considered a highly valuable resource in the past, is less and less considered as such today. The oceans were seens as an obstacle by early human societies; today, as a result of historical development, they're seen less as a problem and more as a resource.

In short, there's a fluid relationship between human beings and resources - not a fixed relationships as the Malthusians argue. As Marx pointed out, problems like poverty and hunger are caused by the way society is organised, not by the limits of nature.


Do capitalists in power encourage population growth?

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Whether they do or not is usually based on their subjective interpretation of the implications of population growth. For example, the West currently promotes poplulation control in the non-Western world because it (wrongly) sees population growth there as a cause of various social, economic and environmental problems.

Vargha Poralli
15th August 2007, 17:10
Do capitalists in power encourage population growth? In their own ways of course that would be unapparent to those who don't look carefully.

Well a higher population does help capitalists in the way you describe but also by helping in lowering of wages-more labours + less jobs = uncertainty and fear among both employed and unemployed.

But I don't think capitalists could be blamed singly. Various factors stimulate population growth.

For example in India in some societies children are seen as gods gifts to the community/caste. So family planning,condom usage,contraceptive usage and abortions at any stage are frowned and discouraged. Some poor sections see children are seen as bread earners - more children = more money.Also they make sure the parents would be taken care of in the old age.

redcannon
16th August 2007, 07:06
in my defense, i didn't mean to come off as a supporter of Malthus. But there is a limit to what the earth can produce, although i suppose no limit to what we can aquire from outside the earth, but that's a different story. In any case, i didn't quite give the examples i wanted. But if there are more people then that would mean more sales. Oy, it make sense in my head, I swear.

Vanguard1917
16th August 2007, 16:44
there is a limit to what the earth can produce

There's no limit to human ingenuity. If human history shows us anything at all, it's that human beings excell at overcoming the limitations of their surroundings. And the truth is that humanity has as yet only learnt to crawl.

redcannon
19th August 2007, 02:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:44 am

there is a limit to what the earth can produce

There's no limit to human ingenuity. If human history shows us anything at all, it's that human beings excell at overcoming the limitations of their surroundings. And the truth is that humanity has as yet only learnt to crawl.
that's true, but more or less not the point of my question.

Would capitalism benefit from overpopulation?
If you don't think it could, explain why not.
Conversely, if you think it could, then explain as to how

Vargha Poralli
19th August 2007, 04:05
Originally posted by redcannon
Would capitalism benefit from overpopulation?

I think I have already said that capitalism benefits from overpopulation. I agree with the scenarios you have given and I also think another crucial factor - Overpopulation also brings in a lot of Industrial Reserve army- hence ensuring highest surplus value for the capitalists both by driving down wages and increasing labour time.

The only thing I disagree with you is Capitalism drives over population. Population growth is influenced by a number of factors. Capitalism plays a very little role in it.

Tower of Bebel
19th August 2007, 09:52
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:06 am
in my defense, i didn't mean to come off as a supporter of Malthus. But there is a limit to what the earth can produce, although i suppose no limit to what we can aquire from outside the earth, but that's a different story. In any case, i didn't quite give the examples i wanted. But if there are more people then that would mean more sales. Oy, it make sense in my head, I swear.
I support Malthus only in certain aspects, but the "bottle neck" has never appeared in modern history.

Vargha Poralli
19th August 2007, 12:48
I support Malthus only in certain aspects,

I would be intrested in hearing about what is supportable about Malthus.

Anyway Vanguard did not give the exact picture of Malthus. Accoring to Malthus the growth of population is exponential - it expands by Geometric Progression while the the ecomony and productive froces expand arithmentically.

Now really what is so reactionary about Malthus's arguemnt is that trhe population excess should not be a great concern because the nature would cancell out the excss population by famine and disease.Because of his influence British Raj considered Faminies as a means to check the excess population making the 200 year of its rule as the most catastophic ones to the Indian people. Also his ideas has influence in the neglect of potato famine too.

Tower of Bebel
19th August 2007, 12:58
What I support is that Malthus said people use preventive checks according to the material conditions to regulate their lives.

Bilan
19th August 2007, 13:06
Originally posted by Raccoon
Capitalists do not encourage population growth. Only fascists have done this so far, but not the capitalists themselves.
It's not in the advantages for anyone today.

This is not true. Our government, The Howard Government, constantly advocates populaton growth.
To quote Peter Costello:
"Have one for mum, one for your dad, and one for the country."

and believe me, it doesn't get much more capitalist than them.

Tower of Bebel
19th August 2007, 13:08
Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+August 19, 2007 02:06 pm--> (Tierra y Libertad @ August 19, 2007 02:06 pm)
Raccoon
Capitalists do not encourage population growth. Only fascists have done this so far, but not the capitalists themselves.
It's not in the advantages for anyone today.

This is not true. Our government, The Howard Government, constantly advocates populaton growth.
To quote Peter Costello:
"Have one for mum, one for your dad, and one for the country."

and believe me, it doesn't get much more capitalist than them. [/b]
Isn't that just some sort of aspect of nationalism? Or is it really a capitalists idea?

Bilan
19th August 2007, 13:11
Originally posted by Raccoon+August 19, 2007 10:08 pm--> (Raccoon @ August 19, 2007 10:08 pm)
Originally posted by Tierra y [email protected] 19, 2007 02:06 pm

Raccoon
Capitalists do not encourage population growth. Only fascists have done this so far, but not the capitalists themselves.
It's not in the advantages for anyone today.

This is not true. Our government, The Howard Government, constantly advocates populaton growth.
To quote Peter Costello:
"Have one for mum, one for your dad, and one for the country."

and believe me, it doesn't get much more capitalist than them.
Isn't that just some sort of aspect of nationalism? Or is it really a capitalists idea? [/b]
It's both.
But you said Capitalists dont advocate it. I was giving you an example contradicting that.

Luís Henrique
19th August 2007, 15:58
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:44 pm

there is a limit to what the earth can produce

There's no limit to human ingenuity.
No, but there is a limit to the available amount of energy. Sources of energy are, in the end, only four: solar radiation, geotermal energy, and Moon's gravitation (which causes tides), and fissile nuclear energy.

If we start using energy beyond these limits (which, in practice, means beyond solar radiation, for the other three are, in comparison, close to nothing), we would be in trouble. Now that's a limit that is very, very far away; but it's a limit anyway, unless we are to colonise space.

Luís Henrique