4 ms·

Thank you, I think that's very useful historical context. Yes Malthus had useful and valuable insights, but also yes we have since discovered mechanisms and pro

by simonh 6y ago

Thank you, I think that's very useful historical context. Yes Malthus had useful and valuable insights, but also yes we have since discovered mechanisms and processes that can largely mitigate these risks which he could not have foreseen.

xyzzyz 6y ago
Yes, we quite obviously have much higher carrying capacity, thanks to improvements in farming technology and in expanding farming into places that haven’t been farmed before. Right now, Europe has more forests and less farmland in use than it had during medieval times, despite having much higher population. We devised ways to mitigate the problems associated with population growth, but we have not solved it: the fundamental logic of Malthus is still very much valid. The carrying capacity of Earth may be much larger than he thought: it may be 50 billion, or 100, or 500 (but probably not 1 trillion), some people surely have created an analysis to get a good estimate given current technology and available land. But, make no mistake, it is very much finite. The good news is that with current trends in population growth, we aren’t likely to hit it in the next few hundred of years.
- ravi-delia 6y ago
  The real death knell is that technological growth grows with population, which means that until some kind of discontinuity is hit the population won't ever be able to hit the carrying capacity before the capacity is increased again. Is there a way to support a trillion people? I can't see one, but technological progress has been doubted before, and rarely correctly.
MikeUt 6y ago
Mitigate, or offload? Instead of facing a global famine, we're causing a global ecological catastrophe. The world didn't end, but species are rapidly going extinct, and it's only a matter of time before it comes back to bite us.
- simonh 6y ago
  It's a statement about what we could do, not what we are doing. Sustainability is achievable, but not inevitable.

by simonh 6y ago

xyzzyz 6y ago

Yes, we quite obviously have much higher carrying capacity, thanks to improvements in farming technology and in expanding farming into places that haven’t been farmed before. Right now, Europe has more forests and less farmland in use than it had during medieval times, despite having much higher population. We devised ways to mitigate the problems associated with population growth, but we have not solved it: the fundamental logic of Malthus is still very much valid. The carrying capacity of Earth may be much larger than he thought: it may be 50 billion, or 100, or 500 (but probably not 1 trillion), some people surely have created an analysis to get a good estimate given current technology and available land. But, make no mistake, it is very much finite. The good news is that with current trends in population growth, we aren’t likely to hit it in the next few hundred of years.

ravi-delia 6y ago
The real death knell is that technological growth grows with population, which means that until some kind of discontinuity is hit the population won't ever be able to hit the carrying capacity before the capacity is increased again. Is there a way to support a trillion people? I can't see one, but technological progress has been doubted before, and rarely correctly.

MikeUt 6y ago

Mitigate, or offload? Instead of facing a global famine, we're causing a global ecological catastrophe. The world didn't end, but species are rapidly going extinct, and it's only a matter of time before it comes back to bite us.

simonh 6y ago
It's a statement about what we could do, not what we are doing. Sustainability is achievable, but not inevitable.