3 ms·
> He went wrong in a much more subtle way, and one that I can't really blame him for. He went wrong in the assumption that humans would continue to grow geometr
by kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> He went wrong in a much more subtle way, and one that I can't really blame him for. He went wrong in the assumption that humans would continue to grow geometrically until all resources were expended, then be forced back down by resource starvation.
You are badly misrepresenting his theory.
- jerf 18y agoA brief review of Wikipedia leaves my opinion unchanged. Care to detail? (I mean, yeah, there's a lot of fairly uninteresting stuff about how selfish people are and such, but whether or not he realized that, that also just fiddles around with "when" the catastrophes happen, not "whether". My summary rather gives him the benefit of the doubt.)