prepping.com
The Population Bomb That Never Went Off
Why Depopulation Is the Real Crisis
Elon Musk has recently been talking about the demographic problem we face…. Depopulation. But historically, the fear of overpopulation has loomed large in the public imagination. In the U.S., from the 1960s warnings of a “population bomb” to modern concerns about climate change and food scarcity, the narrative that “too many people” will doom the planet continues to circulate.
Theologian and historian R.J. Rushdoony, writing in the mid-20th century, argued that the panic is always based on false assumptions. He insisted the actual threat is not overpopulation, but poor management, misguided economics, and ultimately, cultural despair. His critique remains strikingly relevant as fertility rates plummet worldwide.
Defining Overpopulation
Rushdoony began with a simple but often overlooked question: what does “overpopulation” actually mean? He rejected vague fears about “crowding” and “too many mouths to feed,” offering instead a precise definition. Overpopulation occurs only when the number of people exceeds the available food supply, leading to widespread famine. By this standard, he argued, the modern world—with its advanced agriculture, transportation, and trade—faces no genuine overpopulation crisis.
The historical record supports his view. Famine has often struck societies with relatively small populations, not because land and resources were insufficient, but because human systems failed. Before European settlement, Native American populations were sparse, yet food shortages were common due to limited agricultural development and reliance on hunting.
Medieval Europe experienced repeated famines in centuries when populations were a fraction of today’s. Even the Pilgrims at Plymouth nearly starved, not because of land scarcity, but because of a collectivist farming system that removed personal incentive. Once private property and family responsibility were restored, productivity soared.
The lesson is clear: famine is rarely about the absolute number of people. It is about how societies organize themselves, whether they embrace freedom and responsibility or fall into wasteful, restrictive systems.
Socialism and the Manufacture of Scarcity
Central to Rushdoony’s thesis is the contrast between free economies and statist economies. Free markets, through trade and innovation, adapt to regional crop failures and environmental stress. Socialist or collectivist systems, by contrast, paralyze flexibility and magnify shortages.
The 20th century offered grim confirmation. Famines in the Soviet Union and Maoist China occurred not because food could not be grown, but because state policies prevented its production and distribution. Farmers were stripped of incentives, harvests were confiscated, and millions perished. By contrast, nations with economic freedom harnessed technology to achieve dramatic surpluses. As Rushdoony put it: “Socialism always faces overpopulation; a free economy does not.”
Even today, examples abound. Venezuela, once one of the wealthiest nations in South America, has faced food shortages in recent years due to socialist mismanagement. Meanwhile, countries like the United States continue to produce food surpluses, with obesity—ironically—becoming a greater public health problem than hunger.
The Population Explosion That Never Came
In the 1960s and 1970s, the world braced for catastrophic overpopulation. Books like Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb warned that mass starvation was imminent. Scientists predicted that by the 21st century, humanity’s growth would overwhelm the planet. Radical “solutions” were proposed, from compulsory sterilization to insect-based diets.
I remember in 8th grade, reading in our social studies textbook that the Club of Rome predicted there would be one person standing in every square foot of our country unless we surrendered to the globalist demands at the time.
Rushdoony dismissed these claims as pseudoscience. He noted that demographic statistics were often based on limited data from developing nations, then extrapolated centuries into the future. Such speculation ignored war, disease, shifting social norms, and the natural tendency for fertility to decline as societies industrialize.
He was right. Fertility rates in Europe, North America, and parts of Asia were already falling by the mid-20th century. Today, this trend has accelerated beyond what many predicted. According to the United Nations, global fertility has dropped from over five children per woman in 1950 to just 2.3 in 2021. More than half the world’s countries now fall below replacement level. Nations once feared to be exploding—such as India and China—are now bracing for population collapse.
The “population bomb” never detonated. Instead, the opposite problem has emerged.
Economics as Population Policy
Rushdoony emphasized that debates over population are never just about biology. They are fundamentally about economics and politics. Population control, he argued, often serves as a tool for broader economic management.
Rushdoony emphasized that debates over population are never just about biology. They are fundamentally about economics and politics. Population control, he argued, often serves as a tool for broader economic management.
By controlling money through inflation and fiat currency, governments can restrict purchasing power. By regulating wages and prices, they limit consumption. By redistributing land and labor, they reshape society according to central plans. Birth policies—whether promoting or restricting fertility—fit into this matrix of control.
This remains relevant today. In China, the one-child policy (1979–2015) was justified as necessary to prevent overpopulation. But its deeper function was political: aligning family size with state planning. The result is a demographic crisis. China now faces a shrinking workforce, a rapidly aging population, and the possibility of extreme long-term economic decline. Meanwhile, many Western nations promote immigration as a way to offset falling birth rates caused by their own welfare and cultural policies.
Rushdoony’s warning was prophetic: when the state assumes control of family life, it reduces people to economic units rather than stewards of life.
The Religious Foundation of Population Control
At the root of Rushdoony’s critique is a theological observation. Ancient pagan societies routinely used infanticide, abortion, and population regulation to maintain political control. Christianity broke this cycle by affirming the sanctity of life and placing limits on state power.
Modern secularism, Rushdoony argued, has revived the pagan outlook under the guise of science. When family planning becomes a technocratic exercise, scientists and bureaucrats function as new priests, cloaked in the authority of “expertise.” But the underlying belief—that human life can be managed, engineered, or eliminated in service of the state—remains the same.
This perspective explains why population debates often feel more religious than scientific. They do not rest on neutral data, but on underlying views of what human life means. For Rushdoony, the biblical worldview treats children as blessings, while secular ideologies reduce them to burdens.
The Real Crisis: Depopulation and Cultural Collapse
Having dismantled the overpopulation myth, Rushdoony turned to the opposite danger: depopulation. Fertility decline has often accompanied cultural crisis. Ireland after the potato famine, Europe after the Black Death, and post-conquest Mexico all saw demographic collapse rooted not only in disease or scarcity but in despair and spiritual breakdown.
Today, this pattern is global. Europe’s fertility rates remain far below replacement, with entire regions facing population decline. Japan has entered prolonged demographic winter, with more adult diapers sold than baby diapers. Even in developing nations, urbanization and changing cultural values are driving birth rates downward. The United Nations projects that by the end of this century, the global population will plateau and possibly shrink.
Far from being overwhelmed by billions more people, the world may soon struggle with too few. An aging, shrinking population threatens innovation, economic vitality, and cultural continuity. Nations from Hungary to South Korea are already offering cash incentives for childbirth, but cultural attitudes toward family are proving harder to shift.
Faith, Morality, and Demographic Vitality
For Rushdoony, the heart of the matter was spiritual. Societies that lose their faith in God, in family, and in the future inevitably lose their will to reproduce. Children require hope, responsibility, and long-term vision. Without these, birth rates collapse, and civilizations wither.
This is perhaps his most enduring insight. The fertility crisis gripping much of the modern world cannot be solved by subsidies or propaganda alone. It reflects a deeper cultural and moral disorientation. A society that treats children as liabilities rather than gifts is one already in decline.
Conclusion: The Future Beyond the Myth
Rushdoony’s The Myth of Overpopulation remains a striking rebuttal to decades of alarmism in the U.S. History has vindicated his warnings. The planet is not on the brink of collapse from too many people. Instead, it is facing a demographic implosion brought on by cultural despair and statist mismanagement.
The real question is not whether the earth can sustain more people—it can, and technological advances continue to expand that capacity. The deeper question is whether societies will sustain the faith, responsibility, and freedom necessary to welcome new generations.
Overpopulation is a myth. The greater danger is depopulation and the slow suicide of civilizations that have lost their confidence in life itself.
Odysee
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
