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

CLAPTON

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

E=MC^2 explains why we should never run out energy.

Horizontal fracking just gave us another 150 years of natural gas.

Projects such as ITER & DEMO should meet long-term energy needs.

The world population is expected to top out at around 9-10 billion around 2050 and then fall from there. Considering US farms yield five times those in Russia, the huge parts of Africa that are untapped and even the ability to substitute meat for softs in emergencies there is no reason for anyone to go hungry. When people do go hungry it's because of poor logistics.

The intelligence or stupidity of the human race will determine where it goes from here.

interesting that E = mc^2 is probably the most famous equation in science but one that would never be used by a serious scientist

drc

Good post. In just a decade we have seen house prices inflate by something like 1000% (especially here in London) to the point where owning a home is considered a luxury, out of reach for most. We have also seen the pound lose a lot of its value in the last few years (largely unnoticed by most people) and the price of goods is increasing every day. I remember in the 1990s when a travelcard on London transport was £2.20 and now it is something like £7.50. I always thought things would get better in the future, things would get cheaper and easier. It seems that the things we don't really need are getting cheaper - widescreen tv's, computer games etc but essentials - petrol, food, machinery, rent, homes are all slowly going to be out of reach for more and more people. Scary times ahead...

Milarky

StevieJ wrote: »

We could always shop for this .

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/31012011/36/19p-litre-petrol-development-0.html

Hyrdogen from beads?

What about the 'net energy' - that fact that hydrogen requires an energy source before it can used? Oh I forgot, nuclear fission can provide so much cheap, clean electricity that it's too cheap to meter.

What about 'bio'-ethanol (mentioned in the video) where it's explained that it could produce all the US U]current[/U transport needs - if only 100% of agricultural land was used in its production and the 'fertility' of that land is sustained by applying petroleum based 'fertilizers?

[Has anyone watched the video yet?]

Norfolk_Jim

Kohoutek wrote: »

Actually Malthus himself believed that growing population rates would lead to an oversupply of labour, which would lead to lower wages.



Population is the problem. If you have a finite resource base, in the long run (i.e. post peak oil etc) a growing population will make everyone poorer in aggregate. It's just as you point out, resources are not distributed equally at the moment. Neither capitalism or communism recognise that absolute scarcity of resources is an inevitable result of a growing population, so I don't see how global communism rather than capitalism would solve this problem. Personally, I like to see the world do away with moronic religious dogma that greatly exacerbates unsustainable population trends...

You mean you want the Pope to tell the Catholics its okay to use Johnnies? That seems a bit of an oversimplification if you do - you can't lay the worlds population growth at the feet of one religius dogma

Kohoutek

Norfolk_Jim wrote: »

You mean you want the Pope to tell the Catholics its okay to use Johnnies? That seems a bit of an oversimplification if you do - you can't lay the worlds population growth at the feet of one religius dogma

I didn't mean to be that specific. In general terms, countries with high population growth rates are those with a lack of women's rights and family planning, supported by traditional religious beliefs.

Norfolk_Jim

Kohoutek wrote: »

I didn't mean to be that specific. In general terms, countries with high population growth rates are those with a lack of women's rights and family planning, supported by traditional religious beliefs.

Would I be misguided to think that they are also countries with severe poverty issues? China seems to have a population problem without an obvious religious connection. Address poverty and yes, Womens rights, especially their economic situations and family size seems to come down to something more in line with developed country norms.

CLAPTON

Norfolk_Jim wrote: »

Would I be misguided to think that they are also countries with severe poverty issues? China seems to have a population problem without an obvious religious connection. Address poverty and yes, Womens rights, especially their economic situations and family size seems to come down to something more in line with developed country norms.

average family size in china is low due to the one child policy

Kohoutek

Norfolk_Jim wrote: »

Would I be misguided to think that they are also countries with severe poverty issues? China seems to have a population problem without an obvious religious connection. Address poverty and yes, Womens rights, especially their economic situations and family size seems to come down to something more in line with developed country norms.

If by 'address poverty', you mean raise the standard of living of the population of countries like China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh to something closer to a Western standard of living, well, that's simply not possible. The world's use of natural resources is already completely unsustainable with 80% of the world's population living in 'poverty'.

In addition, think of all the countries that are doing quite well now and as a result have booming populations, but whose economies are basically completely based on exporting finite minerals. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, etc. Given that eventually the oil will run out, what's the future of those countries and their populations? A lifetime of hardship and dire poverty would be about the best the population of Saudi Arabia could hope for post oil. Starvation is more likely I'm afraid.

IronWolf

Kohoutek wrote: »

I didn't mean to be that specific. In general terms, countries with high population growth rates are those with a lack of women's rights and family planning, supported by traditional religious beliefs.

Not really true though, China proving the point perfectly.

smeagold

Milarky wrote: »

The Estimate (for 2002) is circa 106 billion births to that date and 5.8%

Has anybody actually watched the video yet? It's well worth the hour or so of your time.

yes i watched abour 6 months ago, downloaded it in segments from youtube, spliced them all together and burned them to disc, the missus watched it too. It is a heck of an eye opener, especially when he goes on about the factor of 31(or is it 32 I forget) and how many sewage systems a city would need after 70 years growth, think I'll watch it again thx