You’re right, and no disrespect meant to the “huddled masses.”

Thinking of it this way – there was never any danger that Ben Franklin (as brilliant as he was) would invent an airplane. He was just not living in a time and place where he could contribute to that effort. Scientists and inventors always stand on the shoulders of others.

“the former is slowing while the latter is rising”

and at a increasing pace.

“But freedom has a Pandora quality too.”

Exactly. As does economic growth.

EP suggests that “subsistence farmers and third-world slum dwellers” won’t contribute much to innovation. Perhaps not. But then again, how many of us have ancestors a few generations back who were subsistence farmers? It’s true, few of us are descended from third-world slum dwellers. I think the term used back in the day was “huddled masses.”

Population growth unaccompanied by economic growth offers little. But the fact is that, pretty much everywhere in the world, the former is slowing while the latter is rising.

I agree with your idea that innovation does not necessarily scale according to population size. A society has to be “plugged-in” – be part of the network of the first world in order to make meaningful innovations.

Some governments want it both ways – China comes to mind. They want the success that freedom brings, without the fuss. To the extent that they allow freedom, they succeed. But freedom has a Pandora quality too.

Anyway, Rand and Phil are right about the environment. The solution will come from humans who are free to innovate.

Ditto human ingenuity; innovation does not necessarily scale according to population, but by population which is enabled to innovate.  The per-capita innovation of educated, high-technology societies is demonstrably orders of magnitude above that of subsistence farmers and third-world slum dwellers; increasing the numbers of the latter is unlikely to result in any net increase in human welfare.