3 ms·

Malthusian arguments are outdated by atleast a 100 years. Where is the proof that “real stuff” is growing slower than the population? Seems like there is too mu

Malthusian arguments are outdated by atleast a 100 years. Where is the proof that “real stuff” is growing slower than the population? Seems like there is too much stuff TBH. And banker-scapegoating is also outdated by ~10 years. The regulations passed after ‘08 have made banks boring and powerless. The focus should be on the tech industry.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Physics has hard limits. Malthus didn't make a perfectly accurate prediction. That doesn't mean it's wise to rely on unpredictable breakthroughs to finance unsustainable lifestyles.
roenxi 6y ago
> Where is the proof that “real stuff” is growing slower than the population? In the US? Government debt is at or approaching an all time high relative to GDP. Corporate debt is rather high although I don't know how it compares historically and there is a massive amount of student debt floating around. There are a lot of people out there who, by the numbers, are consuming quite a bit more than they are producing. US primary energy production has basically flatlined since 2000 [0]. That isn't the be-all and end-all, but it just seems like an easy prediction that long periods of growing population and flat energy consumption is going to lead to problems. The people who can't convince Asians to give them stuff are not going to be rolling in a surplus of stuff, is my read of that chart. I haven't heard good reports about the state of US infrastructure either, but maybe it is better than I think. The States might make it work, but the political situation is developing pretty much how I'd expect it to if there is a large group of people being squeezed out by lack of access to real stuff. There is a big body of people who just aren't producing as much as they are consuming, and the background talk of "we don't need energy to be wealthy!" - I don't see how that squares off against the growing relatively evident growing instability. Trump in particular is not a sign of a thriving economy. Nor is the Democrat rhetoric in response to Trump. Population growth is ~.7-.8% per annum, and real GDP growth is estimated at 2% per annum. Given the expansion of the money supply, and the gossip that the US is a 'service based' economy, it is entirely plausible to me that real stuff is growing more slowly than population and the measured growth is some sort of complicated feedback loop that nobody has tracked down. > Malthusian arguments are outdated by atleast a 100 years. Hopefully. But it is worth being prepared for a world where obvious trends play out to their conclusion. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy#energy-production-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/energy#energy-production-by-regio...
- api 6y ago
  Wow, Europe's investment in renewable energy has really collapsed. Part of the problem is that people think a Malthusian catastrophe would play out like a Hollywood disaster film. That's extremely unlikely. The word "catastrophe" encourages this thinking. A better term might be "Malthusian crunch." It would be more likely to play out very gradually over decades. We would see gradual inflation in the cost of anything requiring energy, water, land, etc., and a gradual reversal of progress for the world's poor and middle class. The upper middle class may barely feel it, but they would notice it as they tend to live close to other classes. The rich may neither feel it nor notice it unless they eventually get caught up in rising political instability or populist revolutions. ... which looks a bit like today. If it eventually results in widespread death most of that death would be due to war, genocide, and disease, not direct starvation as you'd see in a Hollywood film. Most of the death would be proximally caused by political instability, and it would be lost on most people that this political instability was ultimately caused by resource constraints. There are two places it could eventually go. If technology keeps advancing while population growth slows, we might eventually balance out and even reverse the trend. The crunch would be a kind of narrowing passage through which we would eventually pass. If technology stagnates, population growth accelerates, or political instability causes vital systems to collapse, the result could be extremely ugly. Decarbonization should be a big priority because climate change adds yet another drag on the system in the form of massive damage to coastal cities and possibly decreased food production or increased cost, increasing the likelihood of the worst outcomes.

paulryanrogers 6y ago

Physics has hard limits. Malthus didn't make a perfectly accurate prediction. That doesn't mean it's wise to rely on unpredictable breakthroughs to finance unsustainable lifestyles.

roenxi 6y ago

> Where is the proof that “real stuff” is growing slower than the population? In the US? Government debt is at or approaching an all time high relative to GDP. Corporate debt is rather high although I don't know how it compares historically and there is a massive amount of student debt floating around. There are a lot of people out there who, by the numbers, are consuming quite a bit more than they are producing. US primary energy production has basically flatlined since 2000 [0]. That isn't the be-all and end-all, but it just seems like an easy prediction that long periods of growing population and flat energy consumption is going to lead to problems. The people who can't convince Asians to give them stuff are not going to be rolling in a surplus of stuff, is my read of that chart. I haven't heard good reports about the state of US infrastructure either, but maybe it is better than I think. The States might make it work, but the political situation is developing pretty much how I'd expect it to if there is a large group of people being squeezed out by lack of access to real stuff. There is a big body of people who just aren't producing as much as they are consuming, and the background talk of "we don't need energy to be wealthy!" - I don't see how that squares off against the growing relatively evident growing instability. Trump in particular is not a sign of a thriving economy. Nor is the Democrat rhetoric in response to Trump. Population growth is ~.7-.8% per annum, and real GDP growth is estimated at 2% per annum. Given the expansion of the money supply, and the gossip that the US is a 'service based' economy, it is entirely plausible to me that real stuff is growing more slowly than population and the measured growth is some sort of complicated feedback loop that nobody has tracked down. > Malthusian arguments are outdated by atleast a 100 years. Hopefully. But it is worth being prepared for a world where obvious trends play out to their conclusion. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/energy#energy-production-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/energy#energy-production-by-regio...

api 6y ago
Wow, Europe's investment in renewable energy has really collapsed. Part of the problem is that people think a Malthusian catastrophe would play out like a Hollywood disaster film. That's extremely unlikely. The word "catastrophe" encourages this thinking. A better term might be "Malthusian crunch." It would be more likely to play out very gradually over decades. We would see gradual inflation in the cost of anything requiring energy, water, land, etc., and a gradual reversal of progress for the world's poor and middle class. The upper middle class may barely feel it, but they would notice it as they tend to live close to other classes. The rich may neither feel it nor notice it unless they eventually get caught up in rising political instability or populist revolutions. ... which looks a bit like today. If it eventually results in widespread death most of that death would be due to war, genocide, and disease, not direct starvation as you'd see in a Hollywood film. Most of the death would be proximally caused by political instability, and it would be lost on most people that this political instability was ultimately caused by resource constraints. There are two places it could eventually go. If technology keeps advancing while population growth slows, we might eventually balance out and even reverse the trend. The crunch would be a kind of narrowing passage through which we would eventually pass. If technology stagnates, population growth accelerates, or political instability causes vital systems to collapse, the result could be extremely ugly. Decarbonization should be a big priority because climate change adds yet another drag on the system in the form of massive damage to coastal cities and possibly decreased food production or increased cost, increasing the likelihood of the worst outcomes.