“The answer to anyone who talks about the surplus population is to ask him whether he is the surplus population; or if he is not, how he knows he is not.” —G.K. Chesterton
Anyone who is consistent won't believe anything different just because it applies to them. If I think my country is overburdening its natural resources and is overpopulated (and I do) then of course I'll understand that I'm part of the problem. Happily, along with all other sane people, I think that once born people have the right to a good life so I'm not likely to try and end my own because I'm a self acknowledged part of a surplus population.
A true Malthusian is a dangerous thing, in my opinion, insofar as they fully claim that the only way that we can all be rich is by limiting population.
It's possible, at any rate, to accept most of the correlations in this article and to reach a very different conclusion: that the earth is capable of more and more population while still redistributing its proceeds. This argument was made by Henry George more than 130 years ago, and still is worth reading[0].
And the argument may have appealed, 130 years ago. Since then we've quintupled our population and gained a much better understanding of carrying capacity. That capacity may be larger or smaller than our current population, but in either case, indefinite growth is not a sustainable plan — unless we know where our next planet is.
While I might generally agree with your first sentence it's just as important to note that post-scarcity thinking and economics can be just as dangerous, and I say this as a very big fan of Henry George.
We must always be aware and cautious of scarcity of resources (there will always be limiting factors) and the competition that will inevitably arise from that while not making that competition an end to itself.
> A true Malthusian is a dangerous thing, in my opinion, insofar as they fully claim that the only way that we can all be rich is by limiting population.
I'm with Julian Simon (in terms of the desirability of manually controlling the birth rate -- I'm against it). People naturally limit their offspring as they become richer -- and why not?
As machines do more and more work and thus people get richer I assume the birth rate will continue to fall. I do think the birth rate is way too high.
We have to limit population growth because of thermodynamics, otherwise we will all die.
If we increase our energy consumption by 1 % per year, we will all be dead in less than 1000 years because at that point the surface temperature of Earth will have reached the boiling point of water because it can not radiate the energy into space. [1]
You may object that we can reduce the energy consumption per capita and therefore have population growth without an increased energy consumption but that does not work.
Starting with the population of 7.4 billion people in 2016 and a population growth rate of 1 % per year, it will take less than 1400 years until body heat alone will raise the surface temperature of Earth above the boiling point of water. [2]
You may now object that we will of course move into space and leave Earth instead of sticking around here until we all get boiled alive. Unfortunately this does not help much either.
With a population growth rate of 1 % per year we have 2685 more years until we run out of places to live in the Milky Way assuming 400 billion stars and one Earth-like colonizable planet per star. Unfortunately 2685 years is not nearly enough time to reach all the stars in the Milky Way. Even if we would be traveling at the speed of light, we could cross just about 2 % in that time.
Even more fundamentally, space has three dimensions and therefore the number of stars and planets we can reach only increases with the third power assuming a homogeneous distribution [3] and will in consequence quickly be overwhelmed by exponential population growth within the reachable volume.
We can push all those numbers to tens of millennia with a growth rate of 0.1 % per year, but that is still the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. So there are very real limits to the possible growth of the human population and the time frames are not that large even with moderate growth rates. [4]
[1] The total emission of an ideal black body with surface area of 510.1 million km² at 373.15 K is 560,791 TW. The world total primary energy supply in 2012 is estimated to have been 155,505 TWh which is 17.75 TW on average. This is a factor of 31,591 from what Earth could radiate into space at 100 °C or 1,041 years of 1 % growth per year.
[2] Assuming an average basal metabolic rate of 80 W, a population growth rate of 1 % and an initial population of 7.4 billion people, it takes 1,383 years to reach an body heat output of 560,791 TW.
[3] Within a galaxy like the Milky Way it actually becomes more like the second power after some time due to the flat shape.
[4] All this assuming a form of living not to different from today. Moving human brains into computers and getting rid of the bodies would certainly impact the numbers, but even then computers will still consume energy. Similarly the numbers could be impacted by major revolutions in physics. I mean really, really major changes.
At the risk of distracting from the article itself, that graph is very odd from the perspective of this theory. Apparently wages started dropping in anticipation of a population increase?
After rolling this around in my head for a few minutes (clearly I need my head examined) I wonder if the direct cause of the wage increase was simply people's willingness to accept a job in a fixed location. If you told me today that some deadly disease outbreak was under way in San Francisco, I'd leave town, but I'd be able to keep working. That likely wasn't possible during the Black Death.
Stalled population growth creating widespread improvement in living standards is exactly what Malthus said would happen. He was just skeptical we could stall population growth.
But then Malthus lived 100 years before rubber condoms were invented.
For a Malthusian exploration of the psychological/technological impact of overpopulation, check out "Stand on Zanzibar" by John Brunner. It's a bit pulpy but has some very cool ideas.
Sure human populations are increasing and quality of life is going up too, but what about the environment and biodiversity of the planet? We hit peak-human a lonnng time ago if you care about anything beyond how many you can pack on the planet. Toggle through these graphs and you will see everything is collapsing except humans: http://wikipop.org/species/rhinos
Self-determination is another variable that suffers both from population growth and increased communication, in a culture which still values crude evolutionary units of dominance.
Does anybody really believe that, though? It's something different to say that we have large reserves of productivity to feed both economic and demographic growth for the foreseeable future, taking into account the natural slowdowns that advanced development bring (demographic transition...) and to to say that resources are literally infinite. I dont think anyone believes the latter, and it's a little of a strawman argument.
HA. This article doesn't show you what happened after the great enrichment. Classic malthusian. In the late 1600s, we broke the inverse relationship between people and 'misery'. This is a joke, if not an attempt to perpetuate a ridiculous and unfounded worldview.
[+] [-] rrherr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirrent|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgag|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oblio|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bufordsharkley|9 years ago|reply
It's possible, at any rate, to accept most of the correlations in this article and to reach a very different conclusion: that the earth is capable of more and more population while still redistributing its proceeds. This argument was made by Henry George more than 130 years ago, and still is worth reading[0].
[0] http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPP10.html
[+] [-] Bullingdon|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdeuchler|9 years ago|reply
We must always be aware and cautious of scarcity of resources (there will always be limiting factors) and the competition that will inevitably arise from that while not making that competition an end to itself.
[+] [-] plantsoftware|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gumby|9 years ago|reply
I'm with Julian Simon (in terms of the desirability of manually controlling the birth rate -- I'm against it). People naturally limit their offspring as they become richer -- and why not?
As machines do more and more work and thus people get richer I assume the birth rate will continue to fall. I do think the birth rate is way too high.
[+] [-] kwhitefoot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danbruc|9 years ago|reply
If we increase our energy consumption by 1 % per year, we will all be dead in less than 1000 years because at that point the surface temperature of Earth will have reached the boiling point of water because it can not radiate the energy into space. [1]
You may object that we can reduce the energy consumption per capita and therefore have population growth without an increased energy consumption but that does not work.
Starting with the population of 7.4 billion people in 2016 and a population growth rate of 1 % per year, it will take less than 1400 years until body heat alone will raise the surface temperature of Earth above the boiling point of water. [2]
You may now object that we will of course move into space and leave Earth instead of sticking around here until we all get boiled alive. Unfortunately this does not help much either.
With a population growth rate of 1 % per year we have 2685 more years until we run out of places to live in the Milky Way assuming 400 billion stars and one Earth-like colonizable planet per star. Unfortunately 2685 years is not nearly enough time to reach all the stars in the Milky Way. Even if we would be traveling at the speed of light, we could cross just about 2 % in that time.
Even more fundamentally, space has three dimensions and therefore the number of stars and planets we can reach only increases with the third power assuming a homogeneous distribution [3] and will in consequence quickly be overwhelmed by exponential population growth within the reachable volume.
We can push all those numbers to tens of millennia with a growth rate of 0.1 % per year, but that is still the blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. So there are very real limits to the possible growth of the human population and the time frames are not that large even with moderate growth rates. [4]
[1] The total emission of an ideal black body with surface area of 510.1 million km² at 373.15 K is 560,791 TW. The world total primary energy supply in 2012 is estimated to have been 155,505 TWh which is 17.75 TW on average. This is a factor of 31,591 from what Earth could radiate into space at 100 °C or 1,041 years of 1 % growth per year.
[2] Assuming an average basal metabolic rate of 80 W, a population growth rate of 1 % and an initial population of 7.4 billion people, it takes 1,383 years to reach an body heat output of 560,791 TW.
[3] Within a galaxy like the Milky Way it actually becomes more like the second power after some time due to the flat shape.
[4] All this assuming a form of living not to different from today. Moving human brains into computers and getting rid of the bodies would certainly impact the numbers, but even then computers will still consume energy. Similarly the numbers could be impacted by major revolutions in physics. I mean really, really major changes.
[+] [-] sulam|9 years ago|reply
After rolling this around in my head for a few minutes (clearly I need my head examined) I wonder if the direct cause of the wage increase was simply people's willingness to accept a job in a fixed location. If you told me today that some deadly disease outbreak was under way in San Francisco, I'd leave town, but I'd be able to keep working. That likely wasn't possible during the Black Death.
[+] [-] stale2002|9 years ago|reply
Is it America?
Because Malthusian economics seems to be trivial to prove false.
Population growth has stalled in 1st world countries and living standards are continuing to rise.
(yes, they are. The world today is much better than it was in the 90s. By EVERY measurable quality of life statistic)
[+] [-] WildUtah|9 years ago|reply
But then Malthus lived 100 years before rubber condoms were invented.
[+] [-] 67726e|9 years ago|reply
For whom exactly? Insofar as I'm aware, the current situation seems to be the exact opposite. Things are trending downward.
[+] [-] vdnkh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jereme|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] albertTJames|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory
On a more personal note, I have never understood how educated people could believe ressources are indefinite.
[+] [-] erispoe|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plantsoftware|9 years ago|reply
The great enrichment, google it.
[+] [-] valuearb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|9 years ago|reply
Anyone else read the domain name as "grow the con"?
[+] [-] WildUtah|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vdnkh|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]