7 ms·

I recommend reading about the Simon-Ehrlich wager of 1980[1] and also about Thomas Malthus[2]. Many very smart people have speculated many times in the past tha

I recommend reading about the Simon-Ehrlich wager of 1980[1] and also about Thomas Malthus[2]. Many very smart people have speculated many times in the past that major population-reduction strategies must be undertaken, and these doomsday predictions in terms of resource consumption have...almost always been wrong. In Paul Ehrlich's case, in 1968 he predicted that "millions of people will starve to death" in the 1970s due to population growth, and mass sterilization was needed to stop it. The reason why people keep outpacing our own resource constraints decade after decade is that humans, unlike bacteria or any other species you can model population growth after, can modify our own environment, along with the degree of our own resource usage. Which is all to say, that this statement has been proven demonstrably false more often in the past than it has been proven true: "We will either need unpalatable or forced lifestyle/societal changes or we will inevitably face these unwanted changes when consumption outpaces resources." [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

sjg007 5y ago
Global warming and the heat domes killing crops will be a problem.
convolvatron 5y ago
Malthus wrote in 1798. maybe he was a little off. turn it around. there is a clearly a level of population and resource consumption where starvation sets in and consumption drops. you may personally believe that there is a lot of road left, but you seem to be asserting that it just never ends.
cs702 5y ago
Yes, in essence all these dire forecasts are little more than fancy versions of Malthus's predictions, which assume that natural and other resources cannot be improved or increased as necessary by human ingenuity to support and promote societal well-being. Given how large the universe is, I'd bet there's a good chance that scientists, engineers, and enterprising people will find ways to make all these dire predictions wrong. Your comment should be at the top of the page, IMHO. (EDIT: I posted a comment referencing it; it's now at the top of the page.)
- aylmao 5y ago
  My issue with this idea is that that it doesn't take into account time. For example, theoretically there could be a way to harness the energy of the Sun with a Dyson Sphere, but there's a minimum amount of time that will take: - Our neurons fire at "X" speed, and there's a minimum "Y" amount of things we need to think of before we can build one. - Light travels at 299,792 km/s, but there's a minimum "Z" amount of things to be seen, or computed and/or moved before one can be built. - We can harness "N" amount of energy per unit time right now, but there's a minimum "M" amount of total energy that will need to be invested into building one. I think we can all agree a Dyson Sphere won't appear around the sun tomorrow, or next year. There's a theoretical minimum amount of time, dictated by the laws of physics, for one to be built: and this will be the minimum amount of time it takes to make one even if we achieve maximum efficiency. This applies to all human development, so IMO the question really isn't "can we figure out how to build X" but rather "how long would it take to build X". Things like fracking do sound like low-hanging fruit compared to the things we'd have to invent in the future to keep the status-quo. I'm sure theoretically we could invent a lot of things, but as we run out of the low-hanging fruit, can we invent them in time?
Daishiman 5y ago
I'm but you can be completely right about having been wrong in the past, but growth is an exponential phenomenon in a world with a fixed amount of resources. You're just saying "it's worked before, it should work again" as an argument. This is complete garbage.
- kebman 5y ago
  Then please allow the late Hans Rosling to put you at ease :) https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...
  - Zigurd 5y ago
    Rosling is right if his population numbers are right. 10% higher and things go very badly.
- B-Con 5y ago
  "There's a consistent track record of being wrong, we should learn from it" is not garbage, it's the bare minimum for engaging with the topic intellectually and honestly.
  - Daishiman 5y ago
    In that case, we have destroyed about 50% of the earth's natural biomass and we are near the point of depletion of the earth fish stock. That means that an order-of-magnitude increase in consumption, which would trivially happen is all of the earth's existing population were to have first-world consumption standards, would completely wipe away a sustainable society. As far as I know, order-of-magnitude reductions in consumption of basic resources while keeping living standards is not something we are anywhere remotely close to achieving.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  But population growth rate isn't fixed and currently going down. Half of the the world's countries are below the replacement fertility rate, and would be in exponential population decay if it wasn't for increasing life expectancy. China is a great example of this if you want to look into their demographic information
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
revscat 5y ago
Malthus’ predictions were proven incorrect. The predictions of climate models — less rainfall, increased temperatures, less arable land — have proven correct. Not to mention that observable behavior matches those same models. If anything, the models have understated the direness of the situation: both the Arctic and Antarctica are warming far faster than even the most pessimistic models predicted. You are claiming that because one man was wrong that all men are wrong. That is dangerously absurd.
- bmmayer1 5y ago
  No I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that there's something to learn from the history of similar claims and examining why the assumptions in them ended up not being true, to help possibly mitigate similar assumptions today.
CameronNemo 5y ago
All organisms can modify their own environment. Humans are not special. Malthus may have been wrong about the 19th century, but what is a couple hundred years? Life on Earth has been evolving for a much longer period of time. I wouldn't discredit Malthus too soon.
giantg2 5y ago
Are the technologies used to "beat" these predictions sustainable? There's no evidence that our current population level is even sustainable. "Which is all to say, that this statement has been proven demonstrably false more often in the past than it has been proven true" This is a very complex system, and like the saying goes for another well-known complex system "past performance is not a guarantee of future performance".

sjg007 5y ago

Global warming and the heat domes killing crops will be a problem.

convolvatron 5y ago

Malthus wrote in 1798. maybe he was a little off. turn it around. there is a clearly a level of population and resource consumption where starvation sets in and consumption drops. you may personally believe that there is a lot of road left, but you seem to be asserting that it just never ends.

cs702 5y ago

Yes, in essence all these dire forecasts are little more than fancy versions of Malthus's predictions, which assume that natural and other resources cannot be improved or increased as necessary by human ingenuity to support and promote societal well-being. Given how large the universe is, I'd bet there's a good chance that scientists, engineers, and enterprising people will find ways to make all these dire predictions wrong. Your comment should be at the top of the page, IMHO. (EDIT: I posted a comment referencing it; it's now at the top of the page.)

aylmao 5y ago
My issue with this idea is that that it doesn't take into account time. For example, theoretically there could be a way to harness the energy of the Sun with a Dyson Sphere, but there's a minimum amount of time that will take: - Our neurons fire at "X" speed, and there's a minimum "Y" amount of things we need to think of before we can build one. - Light travels at 299,792 km/s, but there's a minimum "Z" amount of things to be seen, or computed and/or moved before one can be built. - We can harness "N" amount of energy per unit time right now, but there's a minimum "M" amount of total energy that will need to be invested into building one. I think we can all agree a Dyson Sphere won't appear around the sun tomorrow, or next year. There's a theoretical minimum amount of time, dictated by the laws of physics, for one to be built: and this will be the minimum amount of time it takes to make one even if we achieve maximum efficiency. This applies to all human development, so IMO the question really isn't "can we figure out how to build X" but rather "how long would it take to build X". Things like fracking do sound like low-hanging fruit compared to the things we'd have to invent in the future to keep the status-quo. I'm sure theoretically we could invent a lot of things, but as we run out of the low-hanging fruit, can we invent them in time?

Daishiman 5y ago

I'm but you can be completely right about having been wrong in the past, but growth is an exponential phenomenon in a world with a fixed amount of resources. You're just saying "it's worked before, it should work again" as an argument. This is complete garbage.

kebman 5y ago
Then please allow the late Hans Rosling to put you at ease :) https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_growth_box_by_box?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...
- Zigurd 5y ago
  Rosling is right if his population numbers are right. 10% higher and things go very badly.
B-Con 5y ago
"There's a consistent track record of being wrong, we should learn from it" is not garbage, it's the bare minimum for engaging with the topic intellectually and honestly.
- Daishiman 5y ago
  In that case, we have destroyed about 50% of the earth's natural biomass and we are near the point of depletion of the earth fish stock. That means that an order-of-magnitude increase in consumption, which would trivially happen is all of the earth's existing population were to have first-world consumption standards, would completely wipe away a sustainable society. As far as I know, order-of-magnitude reductions in consumption of basic resources while keeping living standards is not something we are anywhere remotely close to achieving.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
But population growth rate isn't fixed and currently going down. Half of the the world's countries are below the replacement fertility rate, and would be in exponential population decay if it wasn't for increasing life expectancy. China is a great example of this if you want to look into their demographic information

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

revscat 5y ago

Malthus’ predictions were proven incorrect. The predictions of climate models — less rainfall, increased temperatures, less arable land — have proven correct. Not to mention that observable behavior matches those same models. If anything, the models have understated the direness of the situation: both the Arctic and Antarctica are warming far faster than even the most pessimistic models predicted. You are claiming that because one man was wrong that all men are wrong. That is dangerously absurd.

bmmayer1 5y ago
No I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that there's something to learn from the history of similar claims and examining why the assumptions in them ended up not being true, to help possibly mitigate similar assumptions today.

CameronNemo 5y ago

All organisms can modify their own environment. Humans are not special. Malthus may have been wrong about the 19th century, but what is a couple hundred years? Life on Earth has been evolving for a much longer period of time. I wouldn't discredit Malthus too soon.

giantg2 5y ago

Are the technologies used to "beat" these predictions sustainable? There's no evidence that our current population level is even sustainable. "Which is all to say, that this statement has been proven demonstrably false more often in the past than it has been proven true" This is a very complex system, and like the saying goes for another well-known complex system "past performance is not a guarantee of future performance".