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

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

He was wrong then?

I don't think so, because the way we produce and distribute food today relies on huge supplies of non-renewable materials. Not to mention that several regions of the world have looming fresh water shortages. There's no quick fix to either of those, it can easily be argued there is no solution at all.

Even Norman Borlaug, the person who was credited with saving a billion lives by introducing modern agriculture to India and other poor regions of the world acknowledged that Malthus is likely to be correct in the long run...

...And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the worst of everything that has come before.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

I don't think so, because the way we produce and distribute food today relies on huge supplies of non-renewable materials. Not to mention that several regions of the world have looming fresh water shortages. There's no quick fix to either of those, it can easily be argued there is no solution at all.

Even Norman Borlaug, the person who was credited with saving a billion lives by introducing modern agriculture to India and other poor regions of the world acknowledged that Malthus is likely to be correct in the long run...

The whole planet will be gone in the long run.

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

The whole planet will be gone in the long run.

Yes, but he was talking about 20 years from now, not 2 billion years from now.

StevieJ

Kohoutek wrote: »

Yes, but he was talking about 20 years from now, not 2 billion years from now.

Having just had a look at what he actually said it appeared to side with GMO's as the new solution.

In 2000 he stated: "I now say that the world has the technology — either available or well advanced in the research pipeline — to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called 'organic' methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot."

adwat

There are no GMO's which out produce natural species.

There is no shortage of food production on this planet.

India has a food surplus, the fact that it has some malnourished poor is due to political will - or rather lack of it, as it is more profitable to export the surplus rather than use it domestically - you've gotta just love those nice politicians.

India is but one example. Sure, there are countries which do not produce enough food but this is due to bad organisation not the inherent inability of the country to produce enough to support its' population.

GMO's are being advocated in order to further enhance Monsanto's profits and market position globally.

N1AK

Kohoutek wrote: »

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.



Why is that?

Because he was suggesting that the human population would reach the point where it used all resources, thus leading to scarcity. This would lead to a gradual decrease in quality of life, and increase in mortality.

If we were instead to 'run out' of vital resources, the sustainable population level would crash dramatically due to famine, warfare etc.

In time honoured car analogy terms. Malthus was talking about reaching the point where were using up a steady supply of fuel too quickly. Most doom sayers are warning of a situation akin to the car hitting a wall. One means you need to slow down, the other means you need a new car.

We won't be able to prove what would happen without abundant fossil fuel hypothetically. Much like the concern about horse manure in cities (just prior to the wide adoption of the automobile), current worries are based on us not being able to solve problems that aren't here yet, and we aren't yet trying to solve.

N1AK

Milarky wrote: »

'170' [actually 210]

I was referring to his death, not his first publication.

Malthus believed we would reach the habitable population of the earth quickly. He was entirely wrong.

If I said that all current Monarchies will eventually fail, as people prefer self-determination, I genuinely believe I'd be right. If I said that the British Monarchy will fail soon for that reason in 1830 the fact I was wrong would be painfully apparent.

We may well, at some point, reach an unsustainable population and be unable to 'innovate' the problem away. That will not make Malthus right. We also can't predict accurately how we will face that problem, because trying to 'theorise' about what will be invented is completely pointless.