Posted: Jun 11, 2019 5:49 am
Spearthrower wrote:juju7 wrote:It created a new class of urban workers that were more efficient and also had greater desires for the material goods, so the economy grew. The output of China quadrupled in those years.
And in this notional world, were there 4, 5, or 6 times as many urban workers with greater desires for material goods, and consequently even larger economy, what they would have been the effect on the ecological footprint?
You miss the point completely. Lower population growth means greater economic growth:
https://www.theigc.org/blog/is-populati ... velopment/
Quantity vs Quality: How family sizes affect investment
At that time, the general view of economists was that high birth rates and rapid population growth in poor countries would divert scarce capital away from savings and investment, thereby placing a drag on economic development. They hypothesized that larger families have fewer aggregate resources and fewer resources per child. Larger families therefore spread their resources more thinly to support more children. This leaves less for saving and investing in growth-enhancing activities. It also reduces spending on enhancing the economic potential of each child (e.g. through education and health expenditures).
Read the entire article, and discover where you made the most basic of errors.
