Malthusianism and denialism [or 'nothing-to-see-here'-ism]

Milarky

I'd like to start a debate about the continuing widespread ignorance, indifference and denial of the warnings (originally set down by Thomas Malthus in the 18th century) of apparently all our major decision makers and political thinkers that are so simple even a child (particularly a 'child') can grasp - that the world isn't just running out of stuff, it's running out of stuff at an accelerating pace. We use neutral language like 'steady growth' to imply that repeatedly doubling what we extract and use could somehow (magically) continue indefinitely. In reality (I suspect) we all secretly know the world is running out of time on every front - we just hope to 'get out of this life' before it all comes home to roost. So we don't think beyond ourselves or (at a pinch) the single generation of our children's lives - which will be very much 'different' [read: challenging] from ours anyway. So there's second aspect of denial here- that the changes will somehow all come at once (like a nuclear war) or not at all [in our lifetimes] Wishful thinking indeed.

Here's a thread from last year touching slightly on this important - centrally important question

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2503079

Milarky

Arithmetic, Population, and Energy

Or at least watch the start of it.

There's also a playlist on this talk on YouTube, dubbed: The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (no mean claim!)

The BIG quote to carry around with you:

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

StevieJ

Milarky wrote: »

I'd like to start a debate about the continuing widespread ignorance, indifference and denial of the warnings (originally set down by Thomas Malthus in the 18th century) of apparently all our major decision makers and political thinkers that are so simple even a child (particularly a 'child') can grasp - that the world isn't just running out of stuff, it's running out of stuff at an accelerating pace. We use neutral language like 'steady growth' to imply that repeatedly doubling what we extract and use could somehow (magically) continue indefinitely. In reality (I suspect) we all secretly know the world is running out of time on every front - we just hope to 'get out of this life' before it all comes home to roost. So we don't think beyond ourselves or (at a pinch) the single generation of our children's lives - which will be very much 'different' [read: challenging] from ours anyway. So there's second aspect of denial here- that the changes will somehow all come at once (like a nuclear war) or not at all [in our lifetimes] Wishful thinking indeed.

Here's a thread from last year touching slightly on this important - centrally important question

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2503079

Simple, Malthus was proven to be wrong, he never anticipated the ingenuity of man to solve the problems he predicted, much the same as the modern doomies on here.

Milarky

Prof Bartlett uses the 'Rule of 70' vividly to show how a doubling time can be estimated by anyone (remember that child's mind?). In effect with exponential growth this time period is [practically] equal to '70' divided by the percentage rate.

There is also a very similar 'Rule of 72' which works out as being highly accurate for estimating doubling times at rates up to 15% [pa]! This is more typical of (the thinking of) the financial world, of course.

We often discuss the effects of inflation (purely monetary change) on the prices/value of things but we totally ignore precisely the same mathematical 'reality' implies that physical units are involved too [Think of the bacteria in the bottle segment] What we are doing, I think, is receiving the logical information ["oh, prices must double every ten years at 7% inflation"] about the first part of the exercise, but then not considering the second (and subsequent) doublings at all. This is nicely conveyed in the videos.

See the Wheat and chessboard problem and think "why does my imagination break down/fail me?

Milarky

StevieJ wrote: »

Simple, Malthus was proven to be wrong, he never anticipated the ingenuity of man to solve the problems he predicted, much the same as the modern doomies on here.

Yes, that's been said time and again and there is germ of truth in it. The internet - by which we are communicating - is a great example of something which 'came along' all of a sudden and has undoubtedly increased the 'size of the bottle' markedly. However, as Prof Bartlett patiently explains, it's still just a bottle [the analogy to the finiteness of the surface of the Earth - and the Earth being a 'vessel' in space]

Thus Malthus has not been proved wrong - he has simply been ignored because innovation allows us to put his ideas out of our mind [Like actually dying, they are too disturbing for the conscious mind to carry around all day]

michaels

Well as we all know, compound interest is the 8th wonder of the world etc.

However I guess it is also true that despite increasing longevity and without compulsion, in most countries increasing wealth has resulted in a decline in birth rates to bring populations to a constant or even declining level and there is no reason to believe that this will not also happen in the countries currently experiencing rapid income growth.

It is also generally the case that although incomes continue to increase the number of units of resource (energy etc) required for each unit of output continues to decline thus it would not be impossible for a constant (note I didn't say finite) supply of resource to allow for ongoing annual growth.

lemonjelly

When we get those replicator thingys like they have in Star Trek, we'll be alright...;)

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Its been renamed Mubarakism

You are so 2010

Loughton_Monkey

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Any 'tribe', thousands of years ago, who had such a 'thinker' could easily predict that there are only so many deer to shoot, and so many berries to pick. His mathematical prediction would 'accurately' forsee obliteration of his tribe, and logically every other tribe - since they were in the same 'boat'.

However, since we are more intelligent these days, we can understand that fallacy. He could have been 'right' for his own tribe. Once the last deer has been shot, then no more are available. Famine will ensue until 100 people are down to 5. They would 'live' but only on berries. The tribe next door would have thought of 'farming' and will live happily ever after.

The biggest fallacy in this argument is one of 'straight line thinking'. If we continue to shoot the deer at that rate, then of course they will die out. But nothing is 'straight line'. As deer become scarce, the population will suffer attrition through starvation, but eventually re-balancing will ensure that the number of deer available will meet the demand.

There are equally fallacious arguments these days. On a 'straight line' projection (stupid in the extreme) yes of course, all the oil, gas, and coal is gone in (say) 100 years. So people almost predict that our grandchildren are going to have to wake up one morning and have no electricity to keep warm.

Why, oh why, oh why, do these idiots not project something more realistic. Like for instance the obvious case that oil, gas, and coal will steadily increase in price far, far before it all runs out. It is a mathematical certainty that (currently) very expensive solar/wind energy will become 'economic' by comparison - even forgetting any major strides in technology.

The minute I see any prediction that acknowledges that things never go 'in straight lines' - but in fact in self-adjusting cycles - then I will start to listen. But sadly, 'academics' seem to have blind spots in this respect. It's not easy, I agree, to predict. So I'm with Corporal Jones on this one. "Don't Panic".

Jonbvn

OP,

Are you are Malthus inspired misery guts?
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10077/

IronWolf

As soon as cold fusion comes along we'll be laughin