mil-observer wrote, "But that's all good fun when I get to see Malthus' sick head looming yet again."

Malthusianism is simply another term for the recognition that the natural world imposes limits upon the populations of all species within it, including humans. That has certainly been true of all non-human natural history and has been true of human history up until the commencement of industrial society which began in the 18th century when the global human population was around the 700 million mark. Throughout most of human history, human population has been between 200 million to 500 million.

Since then human population has increased roughly tenfold to become 6.5 billion.

Ideological cornucopians, whether of the economic neo-liberal variety or of the left wing variety would have us believe that this unprecedented apparent overcoming of natural laws in the last three centuries has been entirely due to superior capabilities of the human species which can only have developed since then.

The other obvious possible explanation, that is the unprecedented increase in the consumption of non-renewable natural resources, particularly fossil fuels, is excluded by cornucopians.

However, any examination of a graph of human numbers superimposed onto graphs of the consumption of fossil fuel, for example, petroleum, will reveal a close correlation between the two and, hence a far more likely explanation. See, for example, the image http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/WorldPopulation.gif which appears on http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3726 (roughly 4/5 of the way down).

Certainly, the increase in human population from less 4 billion in the 1960's to its current 6.5 billion was due to the vastly increased use of fertilisers and pesticides manufactured using our finite non-renewable endowment of fossil fuels. For world leaders to have allowed this to happen instead of heeding the well-founded warnings of Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome that we prudently restrain both our numbers and our per-capita consumption of natural resources, is absolute confirmation that human intelligence, or at least the intelligence of the elites (and many of their supposed left-wing detractors) who guide its destiny, has not improved at all in the last 10,000 years.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Another resource which has been consumed profligately since then is, of course, fertile soil, including that in the Murray Darling Basin, which has been largely ruined by industrial farming techniques.

If you want to gain an understanding of the problem, then I recommend you read "Dirt - the erosion of civilisations", written in 2007 by David R. Montgomery. In 245 pages you will find one of the best, most ludidly-written introductions to humankind's most precious resource. Reviews are at http://philobiblon.co.uk/?p=2210#comment-1177218 http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/19/085841.php http://www.celsias.com/article/dishing-dirt-with-david-montgomery/

Random changes to nature rarely are far more likely to be detrimental than beneficial, so any decrease in soil fertility in some areas due to, say, global warming cannot be expected to commensurably offset by increases elsewhere. Even if the could, we still face the logistical problem of delivering the resultant food surpluses to where there will be deficits.

Until firm and comprehensive data is produced, I think it would be safe to assume that the 'tit-for-tat' improvements that you write of are insignificant in the overall picture. It would therefore be reckless and irresponsible to allow ourselves to become complacent on that basis and delay, even for a minute the urgent task of stabilising global human population.

---

If my response to your last post appears snide, mil-observer, it may be due in part to the rage I feel at the role played by many Marxists since the 1960's in helping dig humankind into the hole that we now find ourselves in. (An honourable exception to this is Sandy Irvine who wrote the brilliant "Trotsky's Biggest Blindspot" at http://candobetter.org/node/673 ) Thus, the best opportunity we ever had to achieve an enduring and humane global civilisation was thrown away.

Practitioners of the supposedly most materially-based and advanced of all the political philosophies, have proven themselves barely more capable of grasping the physical world we live in than, for example, those who believe in the literal meaning of the Book of Genesis.

daggett: "If my response to your last post appears snide, mil-observer, it may be due in part to the rage I feel at the role played by many Marxists since the 1960's in helping dig humankind into the hole that we now find ourselves in."

So it's a case of OLO road rage then. Like the revheads who, pestered by their boss and/or spouse, scream at law-abiding strangers on the highway instead. I regard Marxism as simplistic and primitive - in some ways similar to neoliberalism and even Malthusian genocidalism itself. But here's an idea: if you've got a problem with Marxists, go take it out on (wait for it, notebook ready) ...some Marxists.

I suggest that it's just you here who got stuck in a hole - one dug long ago by Malthus. From inside that dark hole, what can be gleaned of the Club of Rome's genocidal target? If I'm not mistaken from my recall of some old Club-franked reference on their favorite subject ("human culls"), they're aiming at a world population of 2 billion. That's around 4.5 billion to somehow die and not reproduce.

daggett: "...any examination of a graph of human numbers superimposed onto graphs of the consumption of fossil fuel, for example, petroleum, will reveal a close correlation between the two..."

Didn't anyone tell you about the birds and the bees? Or is that just your approach to "statistical analysis"? Seems terribly "de-Carbonnellian". I mean, you could superimpose a graph of say, some national cricket teams' batting averages, or the career paths of certain Bollywood starlets, and still conjure such "a close correlation"...

[cont.]

daggett: "...the intelligence of the elites (and many of their supposed left-wing detractors) who guide its destiny, has not improved at all in the last 10,000 years."

Yes, as evident in the fact that infamous war criminal Henry Kissinger is a member of the Club of Rome. Kissinger's "guidance of destiny" included (apart from ruthless bombing of many Southeast Asian civilians, for example) the NSSM 200 directive, which compelled many developing countries to depopulate by intrusive disturbance to birth rates and demographic balance, crippling such countries' efforts at maturing and being able to use their natural resources (instead of having to pawn much of them off to the west).

As I implied earlier: if France and Sweden can supply themselves with such vast nuclear power, then so can India and Indonesia, though with newer and better nuclear technology.

Of course, the Club of Rome would disagree, but the Club of Rome is run by a self-conscious elite of (largely European) nobility, who wish to see such countries in particular become mass terminal wards and/or human abattoirs.

That's why the looming efforts at monetarist austerity - and the febrile resistance to any legally and morally proper bankruptcy proceedings for the debt-mired finance sector - promise the system necessary for such Malthusian depopulation i.e., fascism.

OK, mil-observer,

So you are not a Marxist cornucopian, but some other indeterminate variety that I have not yet encountered. Of course my presumption was hasty, but I now stand corrected.

---

So, what if one genocidal maniac (i.e Henry Kissinger) was a member of the Club of Rome? I could easily name many other right-wing genocidal maniacs who are cornucopians like yourself, starting with former President George W Bush and senior members of his administration who prevented birth control aid from reaching the Third World, thereby making the global overpopulation problem even worse than it otherwise would have been.

---

mil-observer wrote, "I mean, you could superimpose a graph of say, some national cricket teams' batting averages, or the career paths of certain Bollywood starlets, and still conjure such 'a close correlation'.

That's an idiotic analogy and you must surely know that it is.

I would have thought that you would have at least understood that for a correlation to be meaningful that the two values being measured need a common X axis, for example, time.

The correlation between a massive increase in human numbers and a massive increase in consumption of petroleum and other non-renewable resources is there.

Given that neither have happened at any time before in either natural history or human history, it would seem that the latter most likely explains the former.

I note your silence in regard to how the so-called Green Revolution which allowed the growth of human population from around 4 billion to 6.5 billion was dependent upon the increased use of non-renewable fossil fuels and I note your avoidance of a good many other points I raised.

Yes, and you can "stand corrected" on all your flawed arguments and their weak-minded, inconsistent logic, and their hypocritical expression here.

daggett: "So, what if one genocidal maniac (i.e Henry Kissinger) was a member of the Club of Rome?"

Well, it says much about the other hundreds of genocidal maniacs who are members of the Club of Rome, their beliefs, values and aims. As for the GWB theatrics: you don't seem to realize that NSSM 200 determined strategic policy for that administration too (not just the Ford presidency). Whatever seemingly contrary stance applies to a single publicized decision - about an element of birth control distribution - is only relevant to isolated publicity for some of GWB's card-carrying religious constituents. Therefore, the Club of Rome are not only "reactionary elitists seeking to keep the workers from their just desserts": they're imperialists influencing policy in long-term, strategic senses.

Yet again here, don't presume here some schoolmarmish authority with me. As I mentioned before: you don't respond to so many of my points (try the genocidal Club of Rome's depopulation target of 2 billion, or my easy-peezy destruction of de Carbonnel's pseudo-science, or the entire genocidal faith system sponsored by feudal-minded snobs like himself and princes Charles and Philip). Your judgemental hypocrisy there simply conveys a repulsive odor surrounding your logic's handicaps, if not also some deep social inadequacy (perhaps common to Malthusian genocidalists).

daggett: "I...thought that you would have at least understood that for a correlation to be meaningful...the two values being measured need a common X axis, for example, time."

Yes, I do understand that, hence my examples of batting averages and Bollywood careers that can be superimposed along the common X axis for "Time", just as easily as your simplistic presumption about fossil fuel consumption causing or enabling population growth. Such phenomena as certain batting averages and certain Bollywood careers too have never "happened at any time before in either natural history or human history", so your superficial efforts at logic fail there too.

"Green Revolution" depended on seed technology and infrastructure; petrochemicals were a lesser, indirect contributor.