(April 5, 2020 at 11:21 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If you're wondering how malthus was wrong in practice and in theory, OLB, the answer is simple.  He believed that human population always grows more rapidly than human food supply until war, disease, or famine reduced that pop.

Because he believed this, he predicted..in 1798.. that very soon™ the world pop would be hobbled and the survivors forced to live at the level of subsistence.  This is not what happened, because what he believed about pop growth -and- about food production..both turned out to be wrong.  In mere reality, not only were those predictions wrong, but population control measures that have been enacted, such as china's one child policy, simply did not produce the hoped for effects - they increased their resource consumption.   Meanwhile, people in wealthy countries organically decided to have fewer children (and..recall, they also emit more carbon, anyway).\

The only way that removing any number of the population could decrease carbon emissions, is if we targeted carbon emitters specifically..and then prevented the surviving people from picking up the carbon that the newly dead or un-born would have emitted.  Population control schemes, on the other hand, again in mere reality, have the effect of reducing a number of the population that contributes little if anything to the problem.

malthus failures are well documented and Neo-Malthusian theories kicked the bucket in the 90s  .But as i said a fanatic will hear no contradiction

 https://bigthink.com/Mind-Matters/popula...-was-wrong

https://www.vtcng.com/news_and_citizen/o...8282d.html

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43735423?seq=1

(April 5, 2020 at 11:21 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If you're wondering how malthus was wrong in practice and in theory, OLB, the answer is simple.  He believed that human population always grows more rapidly than human food supply until war, disease, or famine reduced that pop.

Because he believed this, he predicted..in 1798.. that very soon™ the world pop would be hobbled and the survivors forced to live at the level of subsistence.  This is not what happened, because what he believed about pop growth -and- about food production..both turned out to be wrong.  In mere reality, not only were those predictions wrong, but population control measures that have been enacted, such as china's one child policy, simply did not produce the hoped for effects - they increased their resource consumption.   Meanwhile, people in wealthy countries organically decided to have fewer children (and..recall, they also emit more carbon, anyway).\

The only way that removing any number of the population could decrease carbon emissions, is if we targeted carbon emitters specifically..and then prevented the surviving people from picking up the carbon that the newly dead or un-born would have emitted.  Population control schemes, on the other hand, again in mere reality, have the effect of reducing a number of the population that contributes little if anything to the problem.

Your assessment is the same as a guy that jumped off a 100 story building -as he whistles past the 25th floor - "so far - so good".

Quote:Your assessment is the same as a guy that jumped off a 100 story building -as he whistles past the 25th floor - "so far - so good".

Nope it's a good assessment 

Meanwhile your a guy who keeps being  shown a circle and then declares it a square

(April 5, 2020 at 12:09 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

Quote:Your assessment is the same as a guy that jumped off a 100 story building -as he whistles past the 25th floor - "so far - so good".

Nope it's a good assessment 

Meanwhile your a guy who keeps being  shown a circle and then declares it a square

Nope... You are an idiot who thinks 2+2 = .75 of a fractured buttplug.

(April 5, 2020 at 12:19 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(April 5, 2020 at 12:09 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Nope it's a good assessment 

Meanwhile your a guy who keeps being  shown a circle and then declares it a square

Nope... You are an idiot who thinks 2+2 = .75 of a fractured buttplug.

Nope i'm the guy who has back everyone of my claims .You are a flat earther who preaches a long debunked ideology despite all he evidence , And somehow deludes himself he math is on his side . Anyway i,m done humoring your delusions you and Yukon Jack should form a club  because his creationism and your Neo Malthusian are the same level of crackpot ideology .

Meh, I don;t think that there's any other ground that needs to be covered with respect to why malthus was wrong in principle and in fact. The guy got it demonstrably and historically wrong and that's all there is to it.

Modern day pop control nutjobs probably aren't influenced by any body of facts pertaining to that, though. More the case of how they view humans, as rats - for example. What do we do with a rat infestation? We exterminate them. It's an odd tick for a species full of members who have all been described by others as rats in need of extermination for the greater good.

(April 5, 2020 at 12:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Meh, I don;t think that there's any other ground that needs to be covered with respect to why malthus was wrong in principle and in fact.  The guy got it demonstrably and historically wrong and that's all there is to it.

Modern day pop control nutjobs probably aren't influenced by any body of facts pertaining to that, though.  More the case of how they view humans, as rats - for example.  What do we do with a rat infestation?  We exterminate them.  It's an odd tick for a species full of members who have all been described by others as rats in need of extermination for the greater good.

You have no facts.. You have a bunch of feel-good blatherings.

You're the band that plays on as the Titanic does it's thing.

(April 5, 2020 at 1:06 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: You have no facts.. You have a bunch of feel-good blatherings.

You're the band that plays on as the Titanic does it's thing.

Malthus was wrong due to scaling in food production, medicine, famine and disease. Like locusts, whenever we run out of a resource, we either have a form of a mass die off or move onto something else. Also like locusts, we're not extinct.

There's little need for artificial population control when our economic model, greed, malfeasance, laziness and other bad characteristics provoke disaster after disaster, from war to environmental change. Even if artificial population control was introduced successfully, it would no doubt be infected by the same awful base behaviors that had previously rendered it unnecessary.

The problem isn't the population - it's fundamentally human nature. And until that is bettered, artificial population control would be but another nightmare in our already considerable repertoire of nightmares we inflict on each other as a people.

Quote:You're the band that plays on as the Titanic does it's thing.

I think this is a great analogy.

I am on the titanic, and in the band, and we're playing a song called "stop, we're fucking up, there's an iceberg ahead". Whether or not the ship plows right into the iceberg is yet to be seen.

We don't act like locusts, or rodents, or a herd of deer - this was another one of malthus' fundamental misapprehensions which necessarily lead to his predictions being wrong - even within a few years of him making them.

IDK if it's really accurate to say that human nature is the problem - human nature covers alot. If it were, then it would be an unsolvable problem. I think that people working with a bad set of asserted facts in a high stakes context is more at play than anything. It's not as if people are out there deliberately trying to make life on earth more challenging for themselves. The reasons that we engage in poor ecological planning are bound up with things that any rational and empathetic person could understand. Rock and a hard place.

True, locusts don't fight wars with each other, mismanage pandemics and other absurdities only known to humans. 😉