4 ms·
It is a ceiling, but there are so many signals prior to hitting that ceiling that the simplification of the Malthusian growth model does not seem to have any ut
by rz2k 9y ago
It is a ceiling, but there are so many signals prior to hitting that ceiling that the simplification of the Malthusian growth model does not seem to have any utility.
Take for example US population density west of the Mississippi. No one needs to explicitly die of thirst. If water is the limiting factor, the cost of water is invisibly incorporated into nearly every cost people experience. If there were limitless water, the influence of other constraints would simply rearrange.
- danbruc 9y agoAfter reading the comments here it probably boils down on what you focus. If you see the entire work pointing out the unsustainability of exponential population growth that will come to an halt either by positive or preventive checks, then you will probably not call him wrong. If you focus on his view that people will probably not be able to get the fertility rate down to sustainable levels and that a Malthusian catastrophe is therefore probably inevitable, then you will most likely call him wrong. But as I said before, I didn't read much of his work and therefore I might have a misconception about what points he actually stressed the most.