4 ms·

whats better: not messing with the environment and continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of human deaths a year. One could argue that in the light of human

by moe 15y ago

whats better: not messing with the environment and continuing to allow hundreds of thousands of human deaths a year. One could argue that in the light of human overpopulation it might not be wise to remove one of our last natural predators. A cynical stance, for sure, and it gets only more cynical when you consider that we might be trading mosquito-deaths for starvation-deaths here...

felipemnoa 15y ago
I would call it a parasite, not a predator.
CWuestefeld 15y ago
in the light of human overpopulation Malthus might make that argument, but others, like Julian Simon, would say quite the opposite. The Malthusian theory is that we've only got a certain amount of arable land, and thus can only support a finite number of people. Once we hit that maximum population, mankind stagnates at that point. The competing theory -- and the one that has proven through history to be correct -- is that the most important resource, the one that outweighs all others, is the human mind. The more people we have, the more creativity we can bring to bear on a problem. Thus, the problem of agriculture has been largely solved. Humans have invented irrigation, terracing, crop rotation, selective breeding, and genetic manipulation. We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau.
- moe 15y ago
  and the one that has proven through history to be correct Something tells me you didn't apply the scientific method here... We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau. That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for us.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    Something tells me you didn't apply the scientific method here... Actually, I've created an alternate universe to serve as a control... Social sciences, unfortunately, aren't generally amenable to experimentation at the scale we're talking about here. That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for us. There's a long string of data points supporting this assumption. (And I'm sure that survivorship bias isn't playing any role whatsoever ;) )
    - moe 15y ago
      Social sciences, unfortunately, aren't generally amenable to experimentation at the scale we're talking about here. Which doesn't change the fact that "proven through history to be correct" is a meaningless claim in this context. You don't have to be a malthusian to acknowledge that the physical resources of our planet are finite and that our track-record of dealing with similar problems on much smaller scales isn't exactly flawless. There's a long string of data points supporting this assumption. (And I'm sure that survivorship bias isn't playing any role whatsoever ;) ) At least you're adding the winking smiley yourself. ;)
- Steko 15y ago
  "proven through history to be correct" Pretty sure you mean partially correct. The wolrd has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits. In the long run yes production can potentially keep pace with population but what's more relevant is the population growth rate itself will naturally fall once a certain quality of life is achieved.
  - michaelkeenan 15y ago
    > The world has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits. Famine isn't caused by a lack of resources - it's a political problem. 87 million people died of famine in the 20th century, but none of those were in democracies. Source (though I haven't checked the numbers myself): http://markhumphrys.com/end.war.html http://markhumphrys.com/end.war.html
    - Steko 15y ago
      To say it's a political problem is to say that you can solve all famine just by just changing over to democracy which simply isn't the case (although it would help!). That's an error in causation. What's more likely is you're seeing the fact that democracy helps but what helps more is the same societal characteristics that are salient for developing a strong democracy (e.g. a strong, educated middle class) also tend to insulate those societies from shocks to the food supply. Certainly type of government is important but to say famine isn't also caused by lack of resources is silly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_famines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_famines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition_in_India "Deaths from malnutrition on a large scale have continued across India into modern times. In Maharashtra alone, for example, there were around 45,000 childhood deaths due to mild or severe malnutrition in 2009, according to the Times of India.[145] Another Times of India report in 2010 has stated that 50% of childhood deaths in India are attributable to malnutrition.[146] Around 7.5 million people per year die of malnutrition in modern India, the largest death rate caused by malnutrition for any country."
mhb 15y ago
When their children have a higher probability of living, parents will have fewer since it is more likely that the ones they have will be alive to support the parents.
ars 15y ago
But most people with malaria don't die. Instead they experience malaise and lack of energy (due to anemia). This causes tremendous misery and suffering, keeping entire populations stuck and unable to progress - but alive.

by moe 15y ago

felipemnoa 15y ago

I would call it a parasite, not a predator.

CWuestefeld 15y ago

in the light of human overpopulation Malthus might make that argument, but others, like Julian Simon, would say quite the opposite. The Malthusian theory is that we've only got a certain amount of arable land, and thus can only support a finite number of people. Once we hit that maximum population, mankind stagnates at that point. The competing theory -- and the one that has proven through history to be correct -- is that the most important resource, the one that outweighs all others, is the human mind. The more people we have, the more creativity we can bring to bear on a problem. Thus, the problem of agriculture has been largely solved. Humans have invented irrigation, terracing, crop rotation, selective breeding, and genetic manipulation. We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau.

moe 15y ago
and the one that has proven through history to be correct Something tells me you didn't apply the scientific method here... We spend our time on the edge of disaster, but before we can topple over, the lure of riches to the person who can come up with the solution is sufficient to take us to the next plateau. That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for us.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  Something tells me you didn't apply the scientific method here... Actually, I've created an alternate universe to serve as a control... Social sciences, unfortunately, aren't generally amenable to experimentation at the scale we're talking about here. That's implying the pretty optimistic assumption that we're capable of solving any problem that we create for us. There's a long string of data points supporting this assumption. (And I'm sure that survivorship bias isn't playing any role whatsoever ;) )
  - moe 15y ago
    Social sciences, unfortunately, aren't generally amenable to experimentation at the scale we're talking about here. Which doesn't change the fact that "proven through history to be correct" is a meaningless claim in this context. You don't have to be a malthusian to acknowledge that the physical resources of our planet are finite and that our track-record of dealing with similar problems on much smaller scales isn't exactly flawless. There's a long string of data points supporting this assumption. (And I'm sure that survivorship bias isn't playing any role whatsoever ;) ) At least you're adding the winking smiley yourself. ;)
Steko 15y ago
"proven through history to be correct" Pretty sure you mean partially correct. The wolrd has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits. In the long run yes production can potentially keep pace with population but what's more relevant is the population growth rate itself will naturally fall once a certain quality of life is achieved.
- michaelkeenan 15y ago
  > The world has a long history of famines that show we quite often bump up against Malthusian limits. Famine isn't caused by a lack of resources - it's a political problem. 87 million people died of famine in the 20th century, but none of those were in democracies. Source (though I haven't checked the numbers myself): http://markhumphrys.com/end.war.html http://markhumphrys.com/end.war.html
  - Steko 15y ago
    To say it's a political problem is to say that you can solve all famine just by just changing over to democracy which simply isn't the case (although it would help!). That's an error in causation. What's more likely is you're seeing the fact that democracy helps but what helps more is the same societal characteristics that are salient for developing a strong democracy (e.g. a strong, educated middle class) also tend to insulate those societies from shocks to the food supply. Certainly type of government is important but to say famine isn't also caused by lack of resources is silly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_famines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_famines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition_in_India "Deaths from malnutrition on a large scale have continued across India into modern times. In Maharashtra alone, for example, there were around 45,000 childhood deaths due to mild or severe malnutrition in 2009, according to the Times of India.[145] Another Times of India report in 2010 has stated that 50% of childhood deaths in India are attributable to malnutrition.[146] Around 7.5 million people per year die of malnutrition in modern India, the largest death rate caused by malnutrition for any country."

mhb 15y ago

When their children have a higher probability of living, parents will have fewer since it is more likely that the ones they have will be alive to support the parents.

ars 15y ago

But most people with malaria don't die. Instead they experience malaise and lack of energy (due to anemia). This causes tremendous misery and suffering, keeping entire populations stuck and unable to progress - but alive.