Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Three fallacies behind population control
Three fallacies behind population control
Apr 26, 2025 12:25 AM

One of the constant refrains in economic development—and now environment issues—is the topic of population control. Evidence notwithstanding, the claim that population causes poverty and that the planet is facing a population explosion is taught as settled science—even in the face of serious population decline in some countries.

We hear this over and over from the UN and popular media, in schools, and from people like Jeffrey Sachs to professional doomsday peddler Paul Erlich. Even the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Social Sciences has invited staunch population control advocates Sachs and Erlich to speak at their conferences. Perhaps Thanos will get an invite soon. Over the last decades Western governments and international organizations have spent billions of dollars promoting population control throughout the world.

There are a number of good books to read on this subject. For a basic overview Juilian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource and Jaqueline Kasun’s The War Against Population are a good start. I also mend Obianuju Ekeocha’s Target Africa for a look into how anti-natalist, population control organizations operate.

Fallacies that Persist

But why is it that so many people believe that there is an over-population problem, even in the face of evidence to the contrary? One reason of course it the consistent ideological propaganda of about population and population control that goes on in schools, universities, and the media.

But there are also a number of fallacies that underlie our view of population. These include fallacies of intuition, the zero-sum game, anthropological fallacies, and the fallacy of correlation–e.g. we see that women in wealthy countries have fewer children than women in poor countries and conclude that this must be the cause of our wealth so we encourage women in poor countries to have fewer children, not thinking that wealth might be the cause of fewer children, not vice versa.

While there are number of things going on that lead people to unquestionably accept the idea of overpopulation, I want to consider here (at least briefly) three key fallacies that shape the way we think about population and poverty.

Fallacy of Intuition

In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, Nobel Prize winning behavioral economist, Daniel Kahneman gives examples of how we can reach conclusions without reflection. We give an intuitive answer because it seems correct, and we follow what he calls the “law of least effort.” He sets out the following problem and tells the reader to solve it quickly within a matter of seconds. Here you go, read it quickly whisper the answer to yourself.

A bat and ball cost $1.10

The bat costs one dollar more than the ball.

How much does the ball cost?

The answer is quite obvious—

10c. Right? Well, actually, no.

It appears correct on intuition, but with further analysis we find our intuition is incorrect. Don’t worry if you answered incorrectly, you’re not alone. Professor Khaneman has given this test to lots of people including Harvard and MIT undergraduate students who also got it wrong—and these are students with high SAT scores and for whom math is not ancient subject from the dimly lit past.

If you haven’t already figured it out look at the problem again. The answer is not $ 0.10 but $ 0.05. The bat is 1.05 and the ball is .05 for a total of $1.10. If the ball cost $.10 the total would be $1.20.

What is this have to do with population question of population and poverty?

Well, when we go to the developing world what often happens when we encounter a lot of poor, barefoot children running around begging. And we engage in fast thinking. e to an intuitive conclusion that fits with conventional thinking: “if there were fewer children, there would more to go around. That appears to be correct and thoughtful, but is incorrect.

It’s important to note that his example of “fast thinking” doesn’t happen on its own. It is highly influenced by a number of sources including predominance of everything from Malthusian assumptions, popular ideas, and propaganda. Our intuition is never blank-slate but influenced by a host of things that we may or may not be aware of.

Economic Fallacy of Zero Sum Game

A second fallacy that leads us to conclude that population is a cause of poverty is the fallacy of the zero-sum game. This is the idea that the economy is like a pie and if one person has a big piece there is less to go around for everyone else. So if there are a lot of people, then that means there is less to go around for everyone. But this is an error on a number of levels. First, economies can grow, which means the pie can grow so the amount of wealth and goods and services are not fixed. Second, and this relates to the third fallacy below, when given the chance people can produce more than they consume. The problem with poverty is not the number of people, but the lack of access to institutions of justice and inability to participate in productive economic exchange.

Anthropological Fallacy

A third fallacy is what I call the anthropological fallacy. We misunderstand the nature and dignity of the human person in society and the economy. One element of the anthropological fallacy I noted above is to view people simply as consumers. But people are not simply consumers; they are not simply burdens. People are also innovators and inventors and producers.

But even if they are burdens, it doesn’t matter. The deepest anthropological fallacy that underlies population control theory is that it misses the dignity and destiny of the human person that goes far beyond what they can produce or consume. People have value because they are; not for what they can produce. A person’s value is not limited to or defined by his or her utility. Economics is part of life, but it is not the all of life. People are more than statistics. They are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, and friends. The social engineer who advocates for population control sees persons simply as things or resources or statistics, but this is deep fallacy that undermines the dignity of the person. It is a neo-colonialist attitude of hubris that does not trust people in the developing world to make decisions for themselves. Again—read Target Africa for a detailed account of the hubris of population social engineers.

Ultimately, the population control advocates get population wrong because they get people wrong. People are not a burden—in fact, when given the opportunity, they are the solution to poverty since humans have creative capacity to generate new wealth and opportunities using their God-given ingenuity and problem-solving capacity.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Obamacare’s Religious Rubes
The White House has a plan to mobilize prayer vigils in front of the Supreme Court in defense of Obamacare. It was reported that the administration met with leaders at non-profit organizations and religious officials who support the new health care law. The court takes up the constitutional test of the health care mandate in a couple of weeks. The mandate has now been challenged in 26 states. Cue the same stale big government religious prophets who confuse statism and...
Italy’s Tax Man Takes Aim at the Vatican
Kishore Jayabalan, the Acton Institute’s Rome office director, was interviewed by the Zenit news agency in an article titled, “Is Taxing the Church a Real Solution for Italy?” In the article, Jayabalan discusses the history of the Italian state and its imposition of property taxes on the Roman Catholic Church’s land holdings, residences and non-profit businesses. Sometimes in the past, particularly under Napoleonic rule and before the Lateran Pacts, the institution of property tax was often a subject of state...
Let’s Change Hearts and Minds (and Laws, Too)
Few clichés are so widespread within the evangelical subculture, says Matthew Lee Anderson, as the notion that our witness must be one of “changing hearts and minds.” In careful hands, the idea is at best ambiguous. At worst it reinforces the sort of interior-oriented individualism that allows for and perpetuates a blissful naivete about how institutions and structures shape our dispositions and thoughts. In less than careful hands, the phrase drives a wedge between law and culture by attempting to...
Integral Human Development
The Journal of Markets & Morality is planning a theme issue for the Spring of 2013: “Integral Human Development,” i.e. the synthesis of human freedom and responsibility necessary for the material and spiritual enrichment of human life. According to Pope Benedict XVI, Integral human development presupposes the responsible freedom of the individual and of peoples: no structure can guarantee this development over and above human responsibility. (Caritas in Veritate 17) There is a delicate balance between the material and the...
How to Love Liberty More Than a Libertarian Economist
I have a deep and abiding love for liberty—which is why I find myself so often in disagreement with libertarians. Libertarians love liberty too, of course, but they tend to love liberty a bit differently. I love liberty in an earthy, elemental way. I love liberty because I need it—like I need air and food—for human flourishing. In contrast, the libertarians I’ve encountered tend to love liberty primarily as an abstraction. Indeed, the most ideologically consistent libertarians I know seem...
Reagan, Whittaker Chambers, and the Threat to Freedom
Over at the Liberty Law Blog, there is an excellent post titled “Ronald Reagan, Whittaker Chambers, and the Dialogue of Liberty” by Alan Snyder. Snyder delves into the influence Chambers had on Reagan and how their worldviews differed as well. Many conservatives and scholars felt Chambers’ prediction that the West was on the losing side of history in the battle against Marxism collapsed after the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union. For many, the ideas of Chambers...
Is Work a Curse?
Is work a curse, a result of mankind’s fall from grace? Not according to the Book of Genesis. As Hugh Whelchel, Executive Director of the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, explains, what Adam was called to do in the garden is what we are still called to do in our work today: Humanity was created by God to cultivate and keep God’s creation, which included developing it and protecting it. You see, we were created to be stewards of...
Constitutional Cases and the Four Cardinal Virtues
Should virtue be a consideration in judicial decisionmaking? Indiana Law Professor R. George Wright makes an intriguing argument for why the four cardinal virtues could be useful in interpreting constitutional cases: Judges typically decide constitutional cases by referring to one or more legal precedents, rules, tests, principles, doctrines, or policies. This Article mends supplementing this standard approach with fully legitimate and appropriate attention to what many cultures have long recognized as the four basic cardinal virtues of practical wisdom or...
How to Steal a Bike in New York City
Edmund Burke didn’t really say it, but it still rings true: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. In a test of this maxim, filmmaker Casey Neistat tries to steal his own bike in several locations around New York City and finds that most people do nothing about it—even when it’s done right in front of a police station. I recently spent a couple of days conducting a bike theft experiment, which...
Lord Acton and the Power of the Historian
Looking through my back stacks of periodicals the other day I ran across a review in Books & Culture by David Bebbington, “Macaulay in the Dock,” of a recent biography of Thomas Babington Macaulay. The essay takes its point of departure in Lord Acton’s characterization of Macaulay as “one of the greatest of all writers and masters, although I think him utterly base, contemptible and odious.” As Bebbington writes, “Acton, a towering intellectual of the later 19th century, was at...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved