The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Malthus and the three card trick > Comments

Malthus and the three card trick : Comments

By Mark O'Connor, published 21/11/2011

Debate about limits to growth should not be allowed to be derailed by irrelevant references to Thomas Malthus.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Cheryl,

"Why stick up for Malthus? It's like sticking up for bad maths."

Yeah, 'coz believing you can have infinite growth with finite resources demonstrates a real sound grasp of numeracy (sarcasm).
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Monday, 21 November 2011 12:00:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again.

The level of discussion on this topic never seems to change. Anyone who does not believe in instant and draconian legislation to i) stop all immigration ii) prevent reproduction above replacement level, will be designated a "rabid growthist" who "believes populations can grow exponentially".

Any discussion on the effects of the ageing population on our economic future - especially that of our children, who will be required to support us - will be instantly suppressed. Mainly on the basis that "it won't happen like that", but without the presentation of a credible alternative scenario.

We will no doubt also hear from the personal-downsizers, who fervently wish that life were as simple today as it was back in the fifties, when...

>>When I was a kid in Sydney, virtually everyone lived within 45 minutes drive of a beach. There was parking free when you got there, & room in the surf. Hell, I could even drive into the city on a Saturday night, park in the street, & take in movie with my girl. What heaven...<<

Still there, Hasbeen?

Malthus is a red herring. What the author really wants is to tell us how to live our lives, under the shadow of the impending doom that is "overpopulation". It's always easier to control through fear, after all.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 21 November 2011 12:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl, world population growth might have slowed from over two percent per year back in 1970 to just over one percent at the present time, but if you look at the latest graph
http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population+growth
you will see that the rate of slowing down has almost stopped. However, even if it averaged just half of one percent between now and the end of this century, the population would still be 11 billion by 2200.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 21 November 2011 12:12:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Population movement & migration, production efficiency, re-cycling, technology & innovation... all these things will continue to drive resource production and the human population upward.

Add to this social-political mechanisms like Education, Land Management policies & the Rule of Law and there is no reason to assume that increased populations will have a largely negative effect on the environment.

Market capitalism will ensure that cost-of-production keeps populations in check.

Anything else is just social engeneering for its own sake. Only crazy lefties think that such social engineering is a good idea.... but they are wrong.

DK
Posted by Dean K, Monday, 21 November 2011 12:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why are they wrong? Don't just make a bald statement without a bit of proof.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 21 November 2011 12:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's funny how people can see things differently. When Malthus proposed his idea it must have been pretty contentious. The mathematical model was simple enough: when exponential growth hits a stable food supply, recurring famines will be the result. But when Malthus proposed this the population was stable. When people died, it normally wasn't from famine, it was like the tree deprived from water being brought down by borers, disease killed them while they were weak. In short there was no direct evidence to support Malthus's model.

The industrial revolution was an experiment Malthus could never have even dreamt of performing. It removed the limits on food production for 200 years. If Malthus was right the population should have grown exponentially. It did.

Extrapolating that mathematical model to conclude it was the driver for recurring famines of Malthus's time is something anybody who has completed grade 12 maths should be able to do. Indeed, I hope some grade 12's do it as homework.

So far from the current industrial revolution proving Malthus wrong, I'd say it proved him right.

@VK3AUU: I probably won't still be around to find out as I only have less than 25 years

I was listening to an ABC interview of Australia's top grain scientists a few months ago. All interviewed said the same thing: they could not see how food production could possibly keep up with population growth in the next 20 years. I've since this assertion repeated in various forums by similar people (ie ones who should know), so it appears to be a meme within the food production circles now.

I'm in no position to gauge how correct they are of course, but if you do the AGW thing and just go with what the bulk of the people who has studied it longest are saying, you won't miss out, you will get to see what happens when a planet of perhaps 8 billion starts starving. I was hoping to miss out on that spectacle myself, but it seems like a forlorn hope now.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 21 November 2011 12:29:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy