3 ms·

> the Malthusian fallacy: namely that humans cannot grow indefinitely Nothing grows geometrically forever. Malthus's discovery was that any increase in food s

> the Malthusian fallacy: namely that humans cannot grow indefinitely Nothing grows geometrically forever. Malthus's discovery was that any increase in food supply was matched by an increase in population until food per person was pretty much the same. He didn't actually say anything about limits to growth. But guess what? He perfectly described all human societies all over the world for over 50K years. The data clearly show that Victorians and cavemen and modern day residents of Ghana had basically the same quality of diet on average. The Malthusian equation has only "stopped" being clearly applicable in a select few industrialized countries and since different points in time after about 1820. For most of humanity the equation actually still works. That's a pretty flimsy set of evidence to start talking about the "Malthusian fallacy" with its huge pile of evidence.

newt0311 18y ago
"Nothing grows geometrically forever." No, not in the empirical sense but the universe is large and, as far as we know, ours for the taking. By "'stopped' being clearly applicable", you mean completely irrelevant and flat out wrong. Also, >200 years of data is flimsy? In a scientific sense maybe, but economics isn't a science -- you can't really perform controlled experiments on the entire economy. Also, if some of the third-world countries do indeed start to grow in economic terms, I am certain that their food production capabilities will catch up. India can feed its 1 billion population and I am pretty sure that 50 years ago, that would have been considered impossible.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  The point isn't that India can't feed its 1 billion. The point is Indians have close to the same standard of living and quality of diet as when they were feeding half that. They're running in place. That's the malthusian trap.
- Eliezer 18y ago
  If you want to grow faster than cubic in the long run, you need some different physics than the ones we currently believe.
  - newt0311 18y ago
    No problem. Physics goes through a major revision every ~100 years. Last revision brought us relativity and QM the latter of which may result in computers which are exponentially faster than the ones we currently have. The next one is around the corner and I am sure that will open up even more opportunities for progress.

newt0311 18y ago

"Nothing grows geometrically forever." No, not in the empirical sense but the universe is large and, as far as we know, ours for the taking. By "'stopped' being clearly applicable", you mean completely irrelevant and flat out wrong. Also, >200 years of data is flimsy? In a scientific sense maybe, but economics isn't a science -- you can't really perform controlled experiments on the entire economy. Also, if some of the third-world countries do indeed start to grow in economic terms, I am certain that their food production capabilities will catch up. India can feed its 1 billion population and I am pretty sure that 50 years ago, that would have been considered impossible.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
The point isn't that India can't feed its 1 billion. The point is Indians have close to the same standard of living and quality of diet as when they were feeding half that. They're running in place. That's the malthusian trap.
Eliezer 18y ago
If you want to grow faster than cubic in the long run, you need some different physics than the ones we currently believe.
- newt0311 18y ago
  No problem. Physics goes through a major revision every ~100 years. Last revision brought us relativity and QM the latter of which may result in computers which are exponentially faster than the ones we currently have. The next one is around the corner and I am sure that will open up even more opportunities for progress.