RE: Overpopulation
October 27, 2011 at 2:23 am
(This post was last modified: October 27, 2011 at 3:27 am by Anomalocaris.)
There are reason you can't built anywhere on earth even if we can keep humans alive on the moon. Depending on where you build, it cost a different amount of economical output, as well as a different amount of non-renewable resource, to just keep the inhabitants of the city alive.
In one extreme, you can build somewhere where it cost more economic output to keep the city alive then the city produces. In this case, the city is a blackhole and the rest of the world would richer if it were nuked.
Somewhat less extreme, the city still produces more than it consumes to keep itself alive. But the margin is small and if the inhabitants were to move elsewhere, they can produce the same amount while consuming less. In this case, the city might stay alive, but it doesn't pay to encourage it to live.
In the case of world wide population this example also applies. As every economist knows the marginal cost of any commodity increases with demand because small total demand can always be met by productions from the easiest mines and the most fertile fields. BUT the availability of easy mines and fertile fields are limited, Progressively larger demands must be met at by progressively more difficult mines and less productive fields. So as the population grows, it will gradually cost more and more to keep the next newborn fed. It is true at the cost of million dollars per meal, we can probably manufacture food out of rocks. But, there reaches a point of population where, as each additional person continues to produce one additional person's worth of output, it would take more than one person's output to provide him with sustenance.
So, we had better not reach the population where we need to make million dollar meals out of rocks to keep each additional person fed before we reach such a point of efficiency that each additional person can afford three million dollar meals per day.
The issue is not whether giant underground caverns and hydroponics can technically keep one alive. The issue is will the world's population reached and surpassed the point where incremental mouths takes more to feed than incremental hands can produce. This is called in economics the Malsuthian trap.
Malthus has been right every time. The most recent dramatic example of an apparent violation of Malthusian trap occurred right before the Irish potato famine, when the introduction of new agricultural techniques - growing potatoes - seem to far outstrip even the storied Irish fecundity. The violation of Malthusian trap continued blithfully until the trap slammed shut with the potato famine.
The analogy bewteen the genetically homogenous Irish potatoes and the vast fields of genetic homogeneity that characterize the modern which seem to outstrip world population growth is even more apt then you might think.
We can cite the entire 1550 - 1911 period in Chinese history as an even closer parallel to modern apparent violation of Malthusian trap facilitated by massive advance in agricultural technology and massive growth of farming into hitherto Non-arable regions, followed by the trap shutting diseasterosly, if you like. In fact the trap closed so resoundingly that the Chinese clearly enunciated the concept of the Malthusian trap years before Malthus.
In one extreme, you can build somewhere where it cost more economic output to keep the city alive then the city produces. In this case, the city is a blackhole and the rest of the world would richer if it were nuked.
Somewhat less extreme, the city still produces more than it consumes to keep itself alive. But the margin is small and if the inhabitants were to move elsewhere, they can produce the same amount while consuming less. In this case, the city might stay alive, but it doesn't pay to encourage it to live.
In the case of world wide population this example also applies. As every economist knows the marginal cost of any commodity increases with demand because small total demand can always be met by productions from the easiest mines and the most fertile fields. BUT the availability of easy mines and fertile fields are limited, Progressively larger demands must be met at by progressively more difficult mines and less productive fields. So as the population grows, it will gradually cost more and more to keep the next newborn fed. It is true at the cost of million dollars per meal, we can probably manufacture food out of rocks. But, there reaches a point of population where, as each additional person continues to produce one additional person's worth of output, it would take more than one person's output to provide him with sustenance.
So, we had better not reach the population where we need to make million dollar meals out of rocks to keep each additional person fed before we reach such a point of efficiency that each additional person can afford three million dollar meals per day.
The issue is not whether giant underground caverns and hydroponics can technically keep one alive. The issue is will the world's population reached and surpassed the point where incremental mouths takes more to feed than incremental hands can produce. This is called in economics the Malsuthian trap.
(October 26, 2011 at 6:56 pm)Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
Tired of responding to you, Mr. Malthus. You were wrong then, you've been wrong every time so far, you'll be wrong this time.
Salt water is fresh water when purified.
Malthus has been right every time. The most recent dramatic example of an apparent violation of Malthusian trap occurred right before the Irish potato famine, when the introduction of new agricultural techniques - growing potatoes - seem to far outstrip even the storied Irish fecundity. The violation of Malthusian trap continued blithfully until the trap slammed shut with the potato famine.
The analogy bewteen the genetically homogenous Irish potatoes and the vast fields of genetic homogeneity that characterize the modern which seem to outstrip world population growth is even more apt then you might think.
We can cite the entire 1550 - 1911 period in Chinese history as an even closer parallel to modern apparent violation of Malthusian trap facilitated by massive advance in agricultural technology and massive growth of farming into hitherto Non-arable regions, followed by the trap shutting diseasterosly, if you like. In fact the trap closed so resoundingly that the Chinese clearly enunciated the concept of the Malthusian trap years before Malthus.
