Refuting the ancient myth of overpopulation

Recent findings decimate the Malthusian outlook and render advocacy of population control not only ill-informed and inexcusable, but frankly anti-human.

(American Institute for Economic Research) — Prince Philip once said, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” The late Duke of Edinburgh passed away in 2021, but the hysterical sentiment he expressed about overpopulation lives on.

A YouGov poll found that overpopulation concerns are widespread among adults across the planet, with nearly half of sampled Americans believing that the world’s population is too high. This view is shared by 76 percent of Hungarians and 69 percent of Indians, according to the poll.

Overpopulation and ecological disasters have been the themes of numerous blockbuster movies, including ZPD (1972), Soylent Green (1973), Idiocracy (2006), and Elysium (2013). Mainstream news outlets have repeatedly promoted the apocalyptic idea to the public, with headlines such as “Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them” (NBC News). The progressive magazine Fast Company released a video titled “Why having kids is the worst thing you can do for the planet.”

The theory of overpopulation, and the collectivist idea that human reproduction must be limited, even by force, is nothing new. It first appeared in the ancient Mesopotamian Atrahasis epic, where the gods control the human population by infertility, infanticide, and appointing a priest class to limit childbirth.

Plato and Aristotle both endorsed a form of proto-eugenics and population control. In The Republic, Socrates and Glaucon conclude that an owner controlling the breeding of his dogs and birds to prevent their degeneration should also apply to the human species. The guardians would be tasked with deciding who is allowed to reproduce and who should be prohibited from having offspring. In the Politics, Aristotle advocated for state-mandated abortions of children with deformities or in cases where couples are having too many children and contributing to overpopulation.

The decline of Greek civilization in the second century BCE was not a consequence of an excess number of births, but precisely the opposite. Polybius attributed the downfall of Greece in his time to a decay of population which emptied out the cities and resulted in a failure of productiveness. It was not warfare and pestilence which reduced the birth rate, but decadence. The idle men of Greece, according to Polybius, were more interested in money and pleasure than marriage and child-rearing.

Two millennia later, English economist Thomas Malthus resurrected the old Mesopotamian myth with his 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus claimed that population growth increases geometrically while food production increases only arithmetically, which he believed would lead to widespread famine if the rapid propagation of humanity were not obstructed.

He identified two checks, one natural and one human-induced, which could keep population growth limited: preventive checks, such as delayed marriage or sexual abstinence, that stabilize the birth rate and evade the natural calamities of positive checks – famines, pestilences, earthquakes, floods, etc. – which represent nature’s striking back against the pressures of unhindered population growth.

Malthus preferred the former, but if unsuccessful, supported appalling and brutal depopulation measures. He suggested policies to “make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” He also recommended banning “specific remedies for ravaging diseases.”

READ: U.S. birth rate hit record low last year, signaling surge in childlessness

Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, used Darwin’s theory of evolution to develop eugenics – a pseudo-scientific theory that the human race could be improved through controlled breeding.

Subsidized by some of the largest philanthropic organizations in the United States, including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution, eugenics was embraced by many leaders of the American progressive movement, who favored involuntary sterilization and immigration restriction.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League – later to be renamed Planned Parenthood – denigrated charity and referred to the poor as “human waste.” She and her companions considered several names for their movement, such as “neo-Malthusianism,” “population control,” and “race control,” before finally settling on “birth control.”

The eugenicists’ fervent collectivism and disregard for America’s founding principles affirming the inherent dignity and rights of every individual were best expressed through Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, in which he wrote:

Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.

Eugenics laws were implemented across the United States beginning with Indiana in 1907. By the Second World War, around 60,000 Americans had undergone sterilization.

In Britain, eugenics was enthusiastically championed by socialists such as John Maynard Keynes, George Bernard Shaw, and H.G. Wells. Keynes wrote an outline for a book called Prolegomena to a New Socialism, in which he listed “eugenics, population” as “chief preoccupations of the state.”

Eugenics – at least under that official title – began to fade after the harsh realities of the Holocaust were unveiled, but the Malthusian presuppositions which undergirded their movement never vanished.

Stanford biologist Paul R. Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb re-invigorated the Malthusian craze for a new generation, predicting imminent worldwide famines and other catastrophes due to overpopulation. In the prologue, he wrote: “We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptom of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out. Population control is the only answer.”

That same year, a group of European scientists concerned about the future of the planet founded an NGO called the Club of Rome. Their first major publication, Limits to Growth (1972), attacked the pursuit of material gain and continuous economic expansion. Two of the Club of Rome’s most prominent members openly declared in their 1991 book The First Global Revolution that humanity is the real enemy:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill… All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

At the time of the publication of Ehrlich’s doomsday book and the Club of Rome’s founding, the world’s population stood at 3.6 billion, and nearly half of people worldwide were living in poverty. Over the next five decades, the global population more than doubled to 7.7 billion, yet fewer than 9 percent of people remain in poverty today, and famines have virtually disappeared.

Ehrlich’s hypothesis was rejected by economist Julian Simon in his 1981 book The Ultimate Resource, in which he argued that a rising number of “skilled, spirited, and hopeful people” results in more ingenuity, less scarcity, and lower costs in the long run. In other words, the larger the human population, the greater the collective brain power our species may wield to innovate, overcome problems, and benefit everyone through increased abundance. The ultimate resource, according to Simon, is people.

Recent research from Gale L. Pooley and Marian L. Tupy has vindicated Simon’s optimistic view. For every one-percent increase in population, commodity prices tend to fall by around one percent. In the years 1980-2017, the planet’s resources became 380 percent more abundant.

These findings decimate the Malthusian outlook and render advocacy of population control not only ill-informed and inexcusable, but frankly anti-human. The ecological cataclysms predicted by Ehrlich and the Club of Rome haven’t come true. Nature hasn’t struck back against a rapidly increasing population in any manner anticipated by Malthus.

As former U.S. Department of Energy undersecretary for science Steven E. Koonin pointed out in his 2021 book Unsettled, U.N. and U.S. government climate data show the following: 1) humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century, 2) Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was 80 years ago, and 3) the net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.

Pooley and Tupy, however, caution that population growth alone is not enough to generate what they term “superabundance,” as they titled their recent book. The innovation required to sustain an ever-increasing world population demands economic and personal freedom. Collectivism and central planning will only restrict the human ingenuity, ideas, and enterprises that will pave the way toward a brighter, more prosperous future.

It is certainly time to lay to rest Malthusian theory and the overpopulation hysteria it has aroused. We must avoid the cynical outlook on humanity which regards us as net destroyers, a viral pathogen ravaging the earth, and instead opt for the more positive – and true – vision of human beings and human destiny. We are net creators.

Reprinted with permission from the American Institute for Economic Research.

Related Topics:#LifeSiteNews AidanGrogan feature Malthusian OverpopulationMyth PopulationControl

Up Next

‘Hottest Year in History’ Alarms are False

Don't Miss

FBI identifies Trump shooter as investigation continues

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canada Greenlights Mass Culling of 400 Research Ostriches Despite Full Recovery from Bird Flu Months Ago

Crime / 3 hours ago

U.S. Charges Sinaloa Cartel Leaders With Narco-Terrorism After Record Fentanyl Seizure

Health / 3 hours ago

RFK Jr. Says Trump Just Did What No Democrat Ever Had the Guts to Do

Alberta

Alberta’s oil bankrolls Canada’s public services

Published on May 12, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Perry Kinkaide and Bill Jones

It’s time Canadians admitted Alberta’s oilpatch pays the bills. Other provinces just cash the cheques

When Canadians grumble about Alberta’s energy ambitions—labelling the province greedy for wanting to pump more oil—few stop to ask how much
money from each barrel ends up owing to them?

The irony is staggering. The very provinces rallying for green purity are cashing cheques underwritten not just by Alberta, but indirectly by the United States, which purchases more than 95 per cent of Alberta’s oil and gas, paid in U.S. dollars.

That revenue doesn’t stop at the Rockies. It flows straight to Ottawa, funding equalization programs (which redistribute federal tax revenue to help less wealthy provinces), national infrastructure and federal services that benefit the rest of the country.

This isn’t political rhetoric. It’s economic fact. Before the Leduc oil discovery in 1947, Alberta received about $3 to $5 billion (in today’s dollars) in federal support. Since then, it has paid back more than $500 billion. A $5-billion investment that returned 100 times more is the kind of deal that would send Bay Street into a frenzy.

Alberta’s oilpatch includes a massive industry of energy companies, refineries and pipeline networks that produce and export oil and gas, mostly to the U.S. Each barrel of oil generates roughly $14 in federal revenue through corporate taxes, personal income taxes, GST and additional fiscal capacity that boosts equalization transfers. Multiply that by more than 3.7 million barrels of oil (plus 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas) exported daily, and it’s clear Alberta underwrites much of the country’s prosperity.

Yet many Canadians seem unwilling to acknowledge where their prosperity comes from. There’s a growing disconnect between how goods are consumed and how they’re produced. People forget that gasoline comes from oil wells, electricity from power plants and phones from mining. Urban slogans like “Ban Fossil Fuels” rarely engage with the infrastructure and fiscal reality that keeps the country running.

Take Prince Edward Island, for example. From 1957 to 2023, it received $19.8 billion in equalization payments and contributed just $2 billion in taxes—a net gain of $17.8 billion.

Quebec tells a similar story. In 2023 alone, it received more than $14 billion in equalization payments, while continuing to run balanced or surplus budgets. From 1961 to 2023, Quebec received more than $200 billion in equalization payments, much of it funded by revenue from Alberta’s oil industry..

To be clear, not all federal transfers are equalization. Provinces also receive funding through national programs such as the Canada Health Transfer and
Canada Social Transfer. But equalization is the one most directly tied to the relative strength of provincial economies, and Alberta’s wealth has long driven that system.

By contrast to the have-not provinces, Alberta’s contribution has been extraordinary—an estimated 11.6 per cent annualized return on the federal
support it once received. Each Canadian receives about $485 per year from Alberta-generated oil revenues alone. Alberta is not the problem—it’s the
foundation of a prosperous Canada.

Still, when Alberta questions equalization or federal energy policy, critics cry foul. Premier Danielle Smith is not wrong to challenge a system in which the province footing the bill is the one most often criticized.

Yes, the oilpatch has flaws. Climate change is real. And many oil profits flow to shareholders abroad. But dismantling Alberta’s oil industry tomorrow wouldn’t stop climate change—it would only unravel the fiscal framework that sustains Canada.

The future must balance ambition with reality. Cleaner energy is essential, but not at the expense of biting the hand that feeds us.

And here’s the kicker: Donald Trump has long claimed the U.S. doesn’t need Canada’s products and therefore subsidizes Canada. Many Canadians scoffed.

But look at the flow of U.S. dollars into Alberta’s oilpatch—dollars that then bankroll Canada’s federal budget—and maybe, for once, he has a point.
It’s time to stop denying where Canada’s wealth comes from. Alberta isn’t the problem. It’s central to the country’s prosperity and unity.

Dr. Perry Kinkaide is a visionary leader and change agent. Since retiring in 2001, he has served as an advisor and director for various organizations and founded the Alberta Council of Technologies Society in 2005. Previously, he held leadership roles at KPMG Consulting and the Alberta Government. He holds a BA from Colgate University and an MSc and PhD in Brain Research from the University of Alberta.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Alberta

Canada’s oil sector is built to last, unlike its U.S. counterpart

Published on May 12, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Rashid Husain Syed

Low-cost oilsands give Canada a crucial edge as U.S. shale oil struggles with rising costs

While global oil markets have rebounded slightly on news of a U.S.-China trade truce, not all producers are equally positioned to benefit. In North America, the contrast is clear: Canada’s oil sector is built for stability, while the U.S. industry is showing signs of strain.

Canada’s oil production is dominated by the oilsands —capital intensive to build, but efficient and low-cost to maintain. Oil sands projects involve mining or steaming oil from sand-rich deposits and can produce for decades, unlike U.S. shale wells that decline rapidly and require constant reinvestment. This gives Canadian producers a structural edge during market downturns.

“The largest companies here in Canada … they have cost structures that are among the best in the world,” said Randy Ollenberger of BMO Capital Markets. “They can withstand WTI (West Texas Intermediate) prices in the range of US$40 and still have enough cash ow to maintain production.”

Mid-sized conventional producers in Canada often break even at US$50 to US$55 per barrel. Major players like Canadian Natural Resources can operate sustainably in the low-to-mid-US$40 range. A break-even price is the minimum oil price needed to cover production costs and avoid operating at a loss.

“We’re not planning on shutting any rigs down or changing our plans, yet,” said Brian Schmidt, CEO of Tamarack Valley Energy. “And it largely is
because our company can tolerate, and is quite profitable, at low prices.” He added: “I think we had already, even before the downturn, put ourselves into a defensive position.”

The data supports that confidence. According to Statistics Canada, 2024 was a record year: crude oil and equivalent output rose 4.3 per cent to 298.8 million cubic metres (about 1.88 billion barrels); exports increased five per cent to 240.4 million cubic metres; and shipments to non-U.S. markets jumped nearly 60 per cent, aided by the completion of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Nearly 89 per cent of Canada’s oil exports still flow to the United States, but structurally, the two industries are diverging fast.

In the U.S., the shale-driven oil boom is losing steam. Production dropped from a record 13.465 million barrels per day in December 2024 to 13.367 million, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Industry leaders are warning of a turning point.

“It is likely that U.S. onshore oil production has peaked and will begin to decline this quarter,” said Travis Stice, CEO of Diamondback Energy, the largest independent producer in the Permian Basin. The company is “dropping three rigs and one crew this quarter.”

ConocoPhillips, another major player, is also pulling back. It reduced its capital budget to between US$12.3 billion and US$12.6 billion—down from US$12.9 billion—citing “economic volatility.” Rig counts are falling as well, according to oilfield services company Baker Hughes.

The core challenge is cost. A Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas survey found that Texas producers’ average break-even price is around US$65, the cost to drill replacement wells ranges from US$50 to US$65, and growth drilling requires prices between US$78 and US$85.

Even after the recent rebound—sparked by the May 12 U.S.-China trade truce—West Texas Intermediate sits at around US$63.07, below what many U.S. firms need to expand operations.

Shale’s short life cycles, higher reinvestment demands and rising capital discipline are colliding with lower prices. The U.S. sector is being forced to slow down.

Canada’s oil sector isn’t just surviving—it’s adapting and growing in a volatile market. With lower ongoing costs, long-life assets and increased export flexibility, Canadian producers are proving more resilient than their American peers.

With tens of thousands of jobs across Canada tied to the oilpatch, the sector’s ability to remain profitable through downturns is critical to Canada’s economy, government revenues and energy security.

In a world of unpredictable oil prices, Canada is playing the long game—and winning.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.