Room for millions

Iran is not overpopulated


Room for millions
by varjavand

My commentary entitled "Defying the Conventional Wisdom” which was published more than a month ago generated variety of remarks from the readers. They were informative and thoughtful regardless of their nature. Thus far, I have not been able to explain some of the alleged unconventional views I presented in that article. The following is kind of sequel to the original article designed to shed some additional light on some of the key points I thought in need of clarification:

1. When I said that people should not complain about overcrowding, that was not to claim unconditionally that overcrowding is not a problem. Overcrowding is a problem, but not for those who make a conscious decision to live in overcrowded city versus small towns. Many people cannot flourish unless they live in big cities. Modern products and innovative services cannot be developed in rural areas. Similarly, overcrowding is not a problem for those of us whose welfare is not adversely affected as a result of it. There are, however, people who always complain because they either cannot afford the expenses or unwilling to tolerate other people. Overcrowding is a challenge for the government who has the means and the power to provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate population growth. However, it may every so often fail to do so.

Almost the entire world’s economic growth happened during the last two hundred years especially after the industrial revolution in the early 19th century. One of the consequences of the industrial revolution was the mobilization of the labor force and massive movement of workers into industrial jobs, thus augmenting the productivity of labor. We learned how to improve our life as soon as we learned to live together. Economic progress requires wealth, and wealth is the fruit of knowledge and technology created by human beings. Furthermore, entrepreneurs are driven by profits that are boosted by mass production. Big companies could not have survived if it was not for the millions and millions of people buying their products.

2. Population may or may not be the only source of wealth. Yes, without people there will not be a great deal of economic activity. Population is in fact the source of wealth, given that property rights are protected. Population is the source of capital, information and technology, the necessary ingredients of wealth and income. I understand there are many populated countries in which living conditions are gloomy; factual testaments that population per se is not a sufficient condition for economic growth. Institutional settings should also be favorable. Respect for and protection of property rights, enforcement of contracts, safe and efficient execution of business transactions, and above all the rule of law are the building blocks of economic prosperity. Without such institutional factors a country cannot move forward no matter how intellectual its population. In other words, the advantages of a large population will not materialize automatically if institutional settings are not constructive. Population without institutional factors is like having millions of modern automobiles but no modern highway system to accommodate them. Calamity will ensue as a result of such mishmash.  

3. I mentioned that society might benefit from a family’s decision to have more children because of spillover benefits to the society while the costs of raising children stay with the family. For many of us, like myself, who come from a big family, I thought that was an altruistic way to justify big families. As long as the children grow up to be productive members of society, they would not make the society any less fortunate. However, if they do not contribute to society as adults, it forces government to support these people using resources that may otherwise be used more deservingly in alternative uses.

When I argued about the benefits of having more children, I made it clear that having more children does not automatically benefit the society. It does so as long as the children do not grow up to become criminals and/or free riders. Generally speaking, I may add, more children may make society worse off because parents need to spend more time taking care of their kids and less time on other matters that can help elevate their standard of living. Society does benefit, though, with one caveat: the family must be able to provide for all children adequately. If not, all the costs of raising kids may not stay with the family as in United States where the burden of welfare payments falls on the shoulders of taxpayers. Having more children without being able to support them is obviously not going to benefit the society.

In spite of all this, the larger the number of children in a family, the bigger is the probability that one of them grow up to be a difference-making individual. When I was in Iran last December, I was given an opportunity to talk to high school students in my hometown. I found most of them very bright, articulate, and enthusiastic to learn. They answered my questions with a high level of sophistication that revealed their maturity. I have no doubt that many of them will grow up to be the future leaders who can wield their power to improve the life of others. Raising children is like archaeology. Archeologists spend months or even years digging the ground expecting to find something of historical value. There may not find something every time they excavate the ground. However, when they find even one significant item, that one item reveals lots of valuable information about our history.  

4. I don’t believe our country is overpopulated. To prove this in a fun way, I did a simple rudimentary calculation. Suppose that there are a total of 13 million households in Iran given that the total population is 65 million and the average size of a family is 5, that is five members in each household. If we give every family a piece of land equivalent to 1000 square meters, each family can build a large house at the middle of it with more than enough space remaining for privacy. Incredibly, a total of 13,000 square kilometers is needed to house the entire population. That is equivalent to about only 0.8% of Iran’s total land area implying that 99.20% of the country’s area still remains free. This is of course an accurate abstract calculation. Whether it is practicable remains to be seen.


Recently by varjavandCommentsDate
The Rise of Secular America
Oct 29, 2012
War with Iran and the Economy
Oct 10, 2012
Why Do We Believe? II
Aug 25, 2012
more from varjavand

There is a fallacy of argument here

by Abarmard on

Something is missing here. I am not an expert on economy, but the idea doesn't add up.
1-Land mass and populations are two different things. Let's say Afghanistan is large enough to handle 100 million, or is it?
2-The population works well during the war or after the war to rebuild. That is if there are funds available to do so.
3-If you have a dynamic economy that can create million plus jobs per year, a larger population might be beneficial.
4-Would you like your economy to be in production or services, where service economy does not require a huge human force.
5-Iran has many other problems that are not considered here, such as water and usable land.
6-We can't support a large population in most of our cities in Iran because of the point above.
7-To divert the land to and create a drinkable water, we need a small working population along with an economy that is capitalistic and modern. We need a tax system and banking system and....
The list goes on...Regardless; there is a lot of ifs involved making your case.


The issue is not overpopulation; it's mismanagement

by Farhad Radmehrian (not verified) on

Your argument is false!
The issue is not overpopulation everywhere; it's a problem of mismanagement of almost everything where populations have concentrated!
It's true that the country has enough land to hold 70 million people! Almost all countries on Earth will pass that test! But people go where services and amenities are!
The question is the country is managing the current population centers! That is the area in which Iran's government (and people) are failing in the worst possible way!


partialy true

by MRX1 (not verified) on

yes if we had a dynamic economey based on production and export and if we were booming like in 1970's and we were bulidng new cities, facilities and so on then yes you are right.
but when you have stagnated economey, 70 million population, mostly in large cities, almost half close to poverty line with not much of prospect for future, then for these conditions we are over populated.


I find you very intellegent person and thank you

by Big Heart (not verified) on

for your articles. They are smart and well articulated.

Keep writing please.