3 ms·
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 gi
by 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 agoI'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 agoto 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.