Our weekly editorial cartoon

KAL's cartoon

See article

Readers' comments




When resources are used efficiently, there are no shortages other than those created by fraudulent financial institutions and their wars.The boom-bust business cycle is a contrived way for a few to steal from the many. This has been well known by genuine economists for over a century.

Mad Hatter

@Barnaby202Here we go - "the problem that cannot be discussed" because of its moral dimension.You are absolutely right – it is a difficult one. Especially when many economic models are based population growth and young workers replacing old. (pensions anyone?) I do not have the answer, but the usual human-centric issue seems to disregard and denigrate any suggestions that take away our right as humans to have whatever we want, bugger the consequences.The most effective birth-control system involves education and emancipation of women, allowing them to control their destinies and realise there is more to life.Correct me if I am wrong, but I think every country that has truly effective equal rights and education for women has a stable or declining birth rate, and that includes countries whose populations traditionally followed the “go forth and multiply” dogma. Italy comes to mind – Catholic, but declining population.On the other hand, the Philippines where education is less readily available and the church has a iron grip on every aspect of peoples lives, (contraception anyone?) is bulging at the seams with people.Similarly, many of the problems of Muslim countries are associated with poverty and disgruntled young people whose future is constrained by the simple fact there are too many children (as wonderful as they are).Time to slow down. More the merrier cannot work anymore.

Mad Hatter

Maybe this clever cartoon is making a stab at addressing the “subject that cannot be mentioned”…..It’s a bit like Voldermort in the Harry Potter books – he exists, but nobody wants to talk about him…What am I referring to? – the obvious – overpopulation - there are simply too many people on this planet if it is to be shared with other living creatures.Oh yes, we can support billions more, but at a very high price, degradation of the environment, reduction in bio-diversity, and lower quality of life.Don’t get me wrong – I am not suggesting anything like a bad guy from a Bond movie, but it is time we started talking about the real source of the world’s problems – overcrowding, and try to do something intelligent about it…Go forth and multiply no longer applies. Ooops.

world citizen

I can't help but notice that the tone wound down to rivalries of position. This cartoon was meant to "imply" by stating it clearly, "".
The problem is not overpopulation nor the capitalist system. The world does not have to come to an end and yes, we can save it. The population of India (1 billion people) consumes far less than the U.S. population (300 million). China (1.3 billion) is growing accustomed to the "American way of life" and has already polluted it rivers, its air and compromised the health of the next generations. I never knew that the "American way of life" was spend until you're broke, mortgage your house so you can buy some more bling so that everybody can marvel at how rich you are. As far as I knew it ended at a house with a white picket fence and added a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot after WWII.
Capitalism works and the world's population problem (as stated in previous texts) is slowly being resolved. The question is how we are living. The depression children; our parents and grandparents (and great grand parents in some cases); lived through hard times and defined America. The work ethic, the family values, responsibility and humility. Saving and buyng only what you need. These things built the gret society we know today. The baby boomers, their children, had the benefit of the hard won infrastructure built by their parents. The disciplined work ethic continued so that the baby boomers are considered the golden generation.
Something went wrong when we borrowed 110% of our worth and value people by what they drove or how much they spent. That is not what made America great.
By consuming as much as possible we set an example for other countries to follow. Goals to achieve. We have to be an example. Europe has tried to do this. They have better worker safety and quality consumer products, though we woud deem them a bit overbearing. We must show that we can produce, live well (happily, not materially), and do well by others and by "gaia". Though the quakers would be an excellent model to follow, I doubt most would do so. But riding your bicycle, buying an economical, environmentally friendly car doesn't hurt. By consuming less, we can have a better quality of life. I know, I have done so. The savings are invested or spent on family and friends, on things they need, so that everyone is taken care of.
We do not have to destroy our planet inorder to live happily, nor can we. Humanity (yes, that includes YOU) must change individually. The only one we can change is ourselves. So each one must make an honest effort to be the change, to be the example for a sustainable future.


End Days!! For those who speak of moving to the moon, have you ever read the novel: the Martian Chronicles written by Ray Bradbury...what happens when we do move to the moon, will we not just eventually over consume all the resources of the moon as well until it becomes an 'earth-like' situation. I think this may be a natural stage in the evolutionary path of the human species. According to Archaeologists, dinosaurs evolved through different sizes and species due to changes in climate, as well as food source. Humans are experiencing this same phenomena and it seems we will evolve once more (by which death due to lack of subsistent resources will be involved).

Jack Spring

KAL's cartoon is the kind of truth telling that we almost never read about in the Economist. While I respect your publication enormously, isn't it time we tempered free-market advocacy with a dose of reality?


somebody help me understand this cartoon. 'heavy machinery' above oil-rich countries? Why?thanks in advance.


JPChance:I would recommend "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by Friedmanhttp://www.bookshop.economist.com/asp/bookdetail.asp?book=3118I'm not sure where you are coming from in regards to KAL's cartoon but I saw it in that light. Perhaps if KAL's cartoon was limited to the current financial crisis I could understand your statement but that is not the point of the cartoon. I'm a big supporter of free markets but I've not seen any evidence that they are any good at planning for anything past the immediate future."Efficiently" does not imply "sustainably". Just look to the recent articles from the Economist on the Mediterranean bluefin tuna.http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12502783&subjectID=348924&fsrc=nwlhttp://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12448356I'm sure once we "efficiently" use up all of the bluefin tune we will "efficiently" move on to the next food source.

Oscar B

Unfortunately people don't seem to learn from recent history. They remember their high school ideas and never learn anything new.Ashh82, turn a few pages of your history-book. Your economic worldview is a little bit outdated. We now know about footprints and stuff, economic colonization, the fact that a sound money-based decision can (and has many times) lead to death through economic deprivation. You want an example? - big business is looking around the world for cheap labor. Many times they don't care if this labor is done by small children, even those who ought to be in kindergarten.- Medicine patents have deprived poor nations from (newer) medicine, thereby causing their non-life (recovery), indirectly their deaths.- The demand for corn/grain (food/energy), wood and other reasons make people in i.e. Brazil cut rain-forest. We already know that that will ultimately kill us by oxygen-deprivation. Which should prevail? economics or existence?We know that if we develop something new, it really should be something with renewable resources.I can see the fact that many businesses haven't started on a new path, so I can understand where you are lacking in information. That's okay, but now you know. Don't do it again.


I fail to see the problem. If Earth is overpopulated, then found colonies on the moon. Mine the moon for it's metals, build orbital colonies from them, and move our overpopulation out into space.

Repeat until the Earth has a sustainable population level.

It's not like we don't have the technology to do this. What we lack is the will.


That Overpopulation chestnut again!

I wish that "Mad Hatter" (and everyone else who thinks over population is the Big Problem that needs to be addressed) would think for a moment about how the problem should be addressed. There are two basic ways of going about reducing over population:
1) People who are already alive should die faster.
2) People who are not yet alive should be born more slowly.

The first would obviously be quicker, but there are drawbacks to this solution that perhaps Mad Hatter does not perceive. For example: Who would die? Would death be voluntary or would force be used?

The second is being applied already. Fertility is now low or falling rapidly in almost all human populations. The human population is still rising but that is because so many of the people who are alive are of child-bearing age and most of the rest are not yet old enough to die of old age. Should we not allow young adults to have children at all? There are disadvantages to this. If we allow no people to be born at all, in 20 years time there will be no 20-year-olds. (And then who would do the work?)
If current trends continue, the world's population will start to decline well before the end of the century. There may be another problem: Who will look after all the old people who have not yet died?

Nurbol Smanov

Everyone are complaining that men are only deteriorating the nature instead of conserving and ameliorating it. the picture shows us that an enormous machine is gobbling up the world, may be trying to excrete some natural resources, besides there are different kind of cries about how people, different kind of financial institutions are consuming products so as money without thinking of eventual imminent and horrible results which lead our world in dire straits. Don't you think that all these actions help to huma being survive and these actions are inevitable part of our life. We have accustomed to deteriorate the earth in order to survive. If wo don't implement these actions humanity will be extirpated. We have to sacrifice in tthis respect, or in other words we have to choose whether we die and conserve our nature and the whole world in a primordial appearance or we will continue the process of evalution, but live in not so good conditions. It's up to you to decide. I'll be glad if someone read my comments and express his opinion to my e-mail conserning pit of view


Lust for more money, more comfort, and more to show has taken us to the point of no return. On the one hand we have damaged the ozone layer, contaminated waters, and chopped down woods; and on the other we have destroyed the moral values. This cartoon illustrates the over consumption, which has devastated the life support system on earth; but what about the other aspect – the deterioration of the moral support system. I believe this aspect deserves and demands attention of think tanks and influential minds. Please pay attention to this system too. Without it humanity is difficult survive on only life support system.

Aureliano Buendia

Mr. Ashh82,

I will respectfully have to disagree with you sir, I don’t think that “man made islands and plans for the world's tallest building.” is something that they should be proud. There are better indicators to define: quality of life and the evolution of a society.

“Ought the resource be stored in the ground? Let the market decide” is at least a lack of conscience. The emerging countries, like the one I live (Brazil), could reconsider some goals, like having the tallest building, if it requests an enormous effort like pumping more oil or destroying the rain forest. I consider this moment a good opportunity to reevaluate what are our needs and what price we want to pay for them.


Just a few years ago the economists warning of over consumption, unsustainable growth, and a "housing bubble", were derided as "on the fringe" and "doomsayers". I'm afraid those warning of global warming are in similar territory of those economists who have since been proven correct. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I hope those "doomsayer's" are wrong. I'm afraid they might not be. Unfortunately your cartoon most likely has it perfectly accurate.


Is it coincidental that Africa is the continent being eaten by the excavator? It would be interesting to know if KAL intended that as a message that Africa is being particularly targeted for unsustainable resource extraction.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

