3 ms·

1) I instinctively agree with 'roenxi', but I'd also agree that I don't have a solid basis for this belief. Could you expand on your claim that Malthus was wro

by nkurz 2y ago

1) I instinctively agree with 'roenxi', but I'd also agree that I don't have a solid basis for this belief. Could you expand on your claim that Malthus was wrong, as opposed to just too early in his prediction? 2) Have even lawyers like you dropped the 'fewer' vs 'less' distinction? I would have thought that you were old and conservative enough that 'less Bangladeshis' would be to grating to write. :)

rayiner 2y ago
Malthusians repeatedly fail to account for technological advancement. There's numerous studies estimating the carrying capacity of earth at above 10-20 billion (figures we likely will never reach): https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_C... (see p. 3). When my dad was born in 1951, Bangladesh had a population of 38 million. People already thought it was full. Now, it has a population of 171 million. At the same time, infant mortality decreased by 7/8ths, so it is now lower in Bangladesh than it was in the U.S. in the 1960s. The country is now self-sufficient in the production of rice, fish, and vegetables. And Bangladesh hasn't even begun to maximize technology. The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, despite being 1/3 the size of Bangladesh (which itself is only a bit bigger than Virginia): https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/netherlands-agriculture-technology/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/net.... Regarding "fewer" versus "lesser": I'm usually pretty pedantic about that, but I think my brain fed me "lesser" to convey, in the context of that sentence, how population control advocates tend to view Asians as an undifferentiated mass.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > There's numerous studies estimating the carrying capacity of earth at above 10-20 billion (figures we likely will never reach): https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_C https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_C... (see p. 3). But the majority [0] of studies on p. 3 suggest the carrying capacity is 8 billion or less. And I suspect that if we dig most of those studies aren't anticipating everyone lives with an overwhelming abundance of material comfort. We've already got more people on the globe than we know what to do with. [0] Technical correctness, the best type.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    My point is that higher ceilings are plausible given certain assumptions. And I expect technological improvement will make those more aggressive assumptions into realistic and likely ones.
  - telotortium 2y ago
    The url doesn’t work
    - nkurz 2y ago
      The one in the GP worked for me: https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_C...
      - telotortium 2y ago
        Thanks!

by nkurz 2y ago

rayiner 2y ago

Malthusians repeatedly fail to account for technological advancement. There's numerous studies estimating the carrying capacity of earth at above 10-20 billion (figures we likely will never reach): https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_C... (see p. 3). When my dad was born in 1951, Bangladesh had a population of 38 million. People already thought it was full. Now, it has a population of 171 million. At the same time, infant mortality decreased by 7/8ths, so it is now lower in Bangladesh than it was in the U.S. in the 1960s. The country is now self-sufficient in the production of rice, fish, and vegetables. And Bangladesh hasn't even begun to maximize technology. The Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, despite being 1/3 the size of Bangladesh (which itself is only a bit bigger than Virginia): https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/netherlands-agriculture-technology/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/net.... Regarding "fewer" versus "lesser": I'm usually pretty pedantic about that, but I think my brain fed me "lesser" to convey, in the context of that sentence, how population control advocates tend to view Asians as an undifferentiated mass.

roenxi 2y ago
> There's numerous studies estimating the carrying capacity of earth at above 10-20 billion (figures we likely will never reach): https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_C https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_C... (see p. 3). But the majority [0] of studies on p. 3 suggest the carrying capacity is 8 billion or less. And I suspect that if we dig most of those studies aren't anticipating everyone lives with an overwhelming abundance of material comfort. We've already got more people on the globe than we know what to do with. [0] Technical correctness, the best type.
- rayiner 2y ago
  My point is that higher ceilings are plausible given certain assumptions. And I expect technological improvement will make those more aggressive assumptions into realistic and likely ones.
- telotortium 2y ago
  The url doesn’t work
  - nkurz 2y ago
    The one in the GP worked for me: https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_C...
    - telotortium 2y ago
      Thanks!