heroes. Those of us that believe government is the problem, nominate
citizens who make non-coercive contributions heroes. How many issues
of political economy reduce to the two sides, one fighting for
government and the other against government?
To justify government gaining more control over our lives, pro-
government advocates justify the enlargement of government as a
response to some problem. Three rather spectacular problems of
humanity show this split.
Population and Resource Depletion—Back in the 1970s, the pro-
government folks were convinced that overpopulation would destroy the
Earth. Population controls by government were needed, they said, in
order to stave off the population bomb in which starvation would
increase exponentially as the earth's food supply could not keep up
with population growth. It, of course, proved false. Over time, not
only have there not been food shortages but food supplies have
increased and the cost of food has steadily declined. And this has
apparently held true for all of the earth's resources. The heroes here
are not politicians but citizens constant work in improving
productivity and products.
Food Shortage—During the 1950s and 1960s, public health improvements
fueled a population boom in underdeveloped nations, leading to
concerns that agricultural systems could not keep up with growing food
demand.
"Three or four decades ago, when we were trying to move technology
into India, Pakistan and China, they said nothing could be done to
save these people, that the population had to die off," said Norman
Borlaug in 2004.
However, thanks to Borlaug's genetic work in expanding agriculture
productivity at just the moment such an increase in production was
most needed, the green revolution more than doubled world food
production between 1960 and 1990. In Pakistan and India, two of the
nations that benefited most from the new crop varieties, grain yields
more than quadrupled over the period. The hero here is clearly Mr.
Borlaug, not any government.
Global Warming—The verdict isn't in on global warming yet, but some
alarmist predictions have proved false. The world has been getting a
little colder in the last decade and climate models have been failing
to predict the recent past. Moreover, as global warming believer Bjorn
Lomborg points out, it's economically much more sensible to spend
money on pending problems (like lack of safe drinking water) and on
mitigating possible future effects of climate change than it is to
reduce carbon emissions, which choke off the near-term economic growth
needed to address environmental needs. Who will be the hero in global
warming? Al Gore and governmet or the constructive activities
activities of citizens producing wealth and techniques for dealing
with problems?
