We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Malthusianism and denialism [or 'nothing-to-see-here'-ism]
Comments
-
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.
By address poverty I mean abject poverty, the kind of poverty that prevents people from having any choices. I don't believe the whole world can or should live the American Dream but the worst excesses are unacceptable. I'd say that the real argument is not population but sustainability and just what is an acceptable standard of living for people in general , accepting there will be inequalities and variance0 -
Thus Malthus has not been proved wrong - he has simply been ignored because innovation allows us to put his ideas out of our mind.
Malthus was wrong, exactly because he did not account for innovation in his work. Mathus was writing at a time when the world population was ~1 Billion, it is now very nearly 7 Billion. He believed that catastrophe was imminent, now 170 years later with 7x the population, the average quality of life has improved vastly.
I'm all for rationing resoureces, encouraging recycling etc, simply because it is provident. Although we may well reach a 'crunch' point, if we do, it certainly won't be anything like what Malthus predicted.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
I take the points about how 'successful' man's ingenuity has proved at staving off the problem of long-term unsustainability. '170' [actually 210] years later we are still alive. That just makes Malthus a poor phophet in my view - because the nature of his 'prophecy' is at once so stark [think '[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem"]Chessboard Problem[/URL]'] and therefore so seemingly 'refutable' by what I would term 'second-order' [i.e. pro technology] arguments for why we should not take him seriously. In effect - he is a difficult pill to swallow. Being difficult doesn't make it wrong to take the pill, though, does it?Malthus was wrong, exactly because he did not account for innovation in his work. Malthus was writing at a time when the world population was ~1 Billion, it is now very nearly 7 Billion. He believed that catastrophe was imminent, now 170 years later with 7x the population, the average quality of life has improved vastly.
I'm all for rationing resources, encouraging recycling etc, simply because it is provident. Although we may well reach a 'crunch' point, if we do, it certainly won't be anything like what Malthus predicted......under construction.... COVID is a [discontinued] scam0 -
We live in a universe with limitless resources, unimaginable resources.
To think that we as a race will exhaust even the huge resources on this planet is provably ridiculous.
Even if we empty the planet of everything, leaving behind an empty husk, we would simply move on and do the same to another planet, another solar system, another galaxy etc.
Like a plague of locusts flying across the universe we will consume everything in our path.
Except that's not likely to happen because matter is neither created nor destroyed.
All the oil we're burning is converted to CO2 which then is converted back to cellulose by plants which in turn get turned into oil, and the cycle starts afresh.
It is not Humans that are a plague on this planet, it is delusional Malthusians who consider their fellow humans to be a plague, but of course they themselves are not.
Anyone subscribing to the ideas of Malthus is someone I consider to be an evil person, and I do not use that word lightly.MFi3T2 #98 - Mortgage Free 15/12/20110 -
Malthus was wrong, exactly because he did not account for innovation in his work. Mathus was writing at a time when the world population was ~1 Billion, it is now very nearly 7 Billion. He believed that catastrophe was imminent, now 170 years later with 7x the population, the average quality of life has improved vastly.
Humans have innovated by harnessing the power of millions of years of stored sunlight, i.e. fossil fuels, to create the modern world. Feeding 7 billion people and enjoying the economic growth that has occurred over the last 150 years was the result of greater use of fossil fuels. It's very far from proven that either are possible in a world without abundant fossil fuels.Although we may well reach a 'crunch' point, if we do, it certainly won't be anything like what Malthus predicted.
Why is that?0 -
Anyone subscribing to the ideas of Malthus is someone I consider to be an evil person, and I do not use that word lightly.
A bit strong
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
A bit strong
Not really StevieJ
Malthus advocated mass genocide on a global scale, making Hitler & Stalin & Pol-Pot look like a Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
These are people who want to see the population reduced from 7bn to 0.5bn so that they are able to live "sustainably".
If you don't believe me, Google "Mathusianism", "Neo-Malthusianism", "Eco-Malthusianism".
Scary stuff, and scary people.MFi3T2 #98 - Mortgage Free 15/12/20110 -
Er...no he didn't.
He believed that growth in population would always exceed food production and that starvation and disease would be an inevitable result of that conflict.
He was wrong then?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards