As a reaction to the demonstrations against overpopulation that have recently taken place in Menorca (as in the rest of the Balearic Islands), a post is circulating on the island with the title of this article published on the website Thinking in the Age of AI. The post is anonymous, but it seems that the author would be linked to a forum of the Jefferson Circle.This is a well-documented post, which questions with data the subjective impressions of those who, trying to enjoy Macarella beach, find themselves without space for either the car or the towel, or of those who find themselves in a traffic jam when trying to reach Punta Nati to contemplate the sunset.The author starts from the observation that Menorca's density is relatively low, even at the time of greatest pressure, in August. This density is about 300 inhabitants per km², while Malta's equivalent figure is 1,860, six times higher. The author, however, considers that “Malta is an extreme case that I do not propose to imitate”; on the other hand, he finds the comparison with Madeira, whose average density is 332, “especially interesting” and asks himself “why an island that does not even reach Madeira's usual density at its peak pressure feels so saturated”.This observation leads the author to conclude that Menorca is not saturated because there are too many people – natives, immigrants, and tourists – but rather because it lacks the capacity to sustain them. From here, he examines each of the bottlenecks in which saturation manifests itself: housing, water, energy, mobility, and the capacity of the most attractive beaches, and concludes that all have a solution that would allow the population of Menorca to increase:Regarding housing, it proposes densifying Ciutadella and Maó (29,000 inhabitants each), emulating Funchal, the capital of Madeira, which has 100,000 inhabitants, while recalling that cities are more efficient and less polluting than dispersed urbanization. Regarding water, it proposes avoiding leaks, reusing treated water, and desalination. Desalination requires energy, but we can generate energy. Regarding mobility, we can offer collective transport and build more infrastructure. Regarding beach saturation, it is about "increasing the offer of things to do" elsewhere, because "one way to protect a scarce good is to increase the supply of its substitutes".Ultimately, it tells us that “before managing scarcity, what we must ask ourselves is what part we can solve by increasing its supply,” which is a matter of investment and technology, and the conclusion is that a Menorca with more population and more tourists is perfectly possible. The post seems extremely interesting to me because it formalizes what Menorcan elites have been doing in recent decades: increasing the island's capacity year after year. Deep down, what the author advocates is that Menorca should continue doing what it has been doing since the 1960s. At this point, readers may ask us if it is true that more people can fit in Menorca. The answer is yes: the author focuses on Madeira, but could have done so on Hong Kong or Singapore, islands with a surface area comparable to that of Menorca, where 7.5 and 6.1 million people live, respectively.
The relevant question is therefore not the one the author asks, but why Menorca should continue to grow in population and tourists. There are at least three reasons to conclude that continued growth is a mistake. The first is the evolution of Menorca's GDP per capita in recent decades: if until the year 2000 it was converging with the French, since then it has been moving away.The second is, precisely, the comparison with Madeira. In 1980, Madeira's GDP per capita was one third of Menorca's: much poorer; in 2000 it was two thirds; today it is slightly higher. How has Madeira achieved this? Not by growing: while Menorca's population has multiplied by 2.5, Madeira's has tended to decrease.The third is the quality of the tourist product, which only has one relevant measure: exclusivity. More capacity, more tourists, and more density means lower prices, lower productivity, and therefore a lower standard of living.Ultimately, our author asks the wrong question and consequently arrives at an answer that is also wrong. A final observation on our author's surprising affiliation. Thomas Jefferson abhorred cities, which he considered "a pestilence to the morals, health, and liberties of man" and advocated a rural model for the nascent republic. There is no doubt that not only would he not have agreed with our author, but his proposals would have seemed to him a complete absurdity.
