3 ms·

I don't think you deserve the downvotes; your point may be valid, even if pessimistic. Just because we've managed to overcome what seemed to be infeasible hurd

by kbolino 14y ago

I don't think you deserve the downvotes; your point may be valid, even if pessimistic. Just because we've managed to overcome what seemed to be infeasible hurdles doesn't mean we will continue to do so. Of course, just because the new hurdles seem even less feasible doesn't mean we won't overcome them, either. The point being that you'll never know you're at the cusp until you're well into the valley on the other side. Malthus was wrong about the long-run behavior of populations, but I think it's worthwhile to note that we can feed yesterday's population today. World hunger could have been a solved problem with all the advances that were made. But who has the right to tell you not to breed?

CWuestefeld 14y ago
Well, the argument needed to be made because there are so many who subscribe to it. But the important point that this misses is that the availability of any given resource isn't what's critical, since all throughout history it's been shown that human ingenuity has been able to find alternatives. The critical factor is that human ingenuity. And because that human factor -- the availability of someone who can figure out that alternative, and who has the incentive to do so -- is growing with the growth of the population, are horizons are only broadening! Contrary to Malthus, an increasing population is, in the long run, better for mankind's prospects.
- _delirium 14y ago
  I'm not at all sure the last part is true. It's difficult to do experiments in history, of course, but there are historical examples of quite fast-advancing societies with smallish, stable populations, and of not-making-progress societies with large and growing populations. Enough that I doubt any general causal relationship between population growth and technological advances or quality of life.
- baq 14y ago
  to paraphrase a classic: "on this planet, we obey the laws of thermodynamics." can't be bothered to explain in detail, leaving a link to a most interesting blog instead: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-way-is-shut/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-way-is-shut/. i assume increasing population => increasing energy demand.

by kbolino 14y ago

CWuestefeld 14y ago

Well, the argument needed to be made because there are so many who subscribe to it. But the important point that this misses is that the availability of any given resource isn't what's critical, since all throughout history it's been shown that human ingenuity has been able to find alternatives. The critical factor is that human ingenuity. And because that human factor -- the availability of someone who can figure out that alternative, and who has the incentive to do so -- is growing with the growth of the population, are horizons are only broadening! Contrary to Malthus, an increasing population is, in the long run, better for mankind's prospects.

_delirium 14y ago
I'm not at all sure the last part is true. It's difficult to do experiments in history, of course, but there are historical examples of quite fast-advancing societies with smallish, stable populations, and of not-making-progress societies with large and growing populations. Enough that I doubt any general causal relationship between population growth and technological advances or quality of life.
baq 14y ago
to paraphrase a classic: "on this planet, we obey the laws of thermodynamics." can't be bothered to explain in detail, leaving a link to a most interesting blog instead: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-way-is-shut/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-way-is-shut/. i assume increasing population => increasing energy demand.