The fact that Malthus was wrong never seems to deter the enthusiasm of his adherents.

His idea is attractive because it seems self-evident: you can't have infinite growth on a finite base. But that doesn't mean that the resource base is static; that all production possibilities are known to the doom-sayers; that we know how close the time-limits are; nor that central planning is presumptively superior, either morally or pragmatically. The reasons why Malthus and Ehrlich were wrong to date continue to apply.

Of course big-government types love to think of the existence of human beings as the problem - to be rationalised by the judicious application of force. They assume that the only thing lacking is enough force. But the great furphy in arguments for policy is the assumption that government is in any better position to rationalise scarce resources to their most valued ends, than everyone else put together and acting with a much greater set of information and incentives than government can ever have.

Problem is, predictions using history alone are almost guaranteed to be faulty. Mostly because our lives today are different to our lives yesterday, last year, last century etc. So by definition, any attempt to extract a mathematical progression on population will be missing a key ingredient: people.

This was the mistake made by Malthus. And "The Limits to Growth". Both ignored the fact that the world and its peoples do not stand still, but keep changing.

The arrival of the globe's seven billionth person is of course an entirely appropriate moment to reflect upon where we have come from, and where we might be going. But the future is not entirely doom-filled.

This topic was covered quite well in an Economist article from last week.

http://www.economist.com/node/21533364

It gets away from the simplistic mathematical approach, and talks about such issues as ageing populations, China's approaching issues with gender imbalance etc.

Well worth a read.

The 'limits to growth' idea is based upon the myth that humans are using everything up in a finite world. It does not take into account that humans are also contributing to maintaining and increasing resources and that many resources are recycled naturally through waste etc. Nor does it take into account that humans are only one of millions of species which use resources every day. If the world was as finite as is said, insects would have destroyed it long ago; there are 200 billion of them for every one human.

As Jardine says, Malthus was wrong, Ehrlich was embarrasingly incorrect (he gave the human race a 2% chance of reaching 2000!) and the 'Limits to Growth' book was commissioned by the Club of Rome, a grouping of the European mega wealthy and aristocracy in an effort to regain control over of the population by exaggerating environmental concerns which are used as leverage to control resources.

Limiting population growth is seen as a tool by the new Green elite who both see humans (other than themselves!) as an annoying and destructive infestation. Some would like to return us to a feudal system where all but the ruling elite are poor and all resources are 'owned' by a central system. Just like medieval europe. Pay to catch a fish on the Royal Estate!

There is less hunger and a genrally higher standard of living in the world than there was 50-100 yrs ago. Explain that Malthus.

A very interesting article Michael. Thank you! It is sobering to think that Knibbs was making his statements before the oil-driven green revolution pushed food productivity to new levels per hectare. Now, as oil production stagnates (and will be falling before the end of this decade) we will be faced with the (impossible?) task of feeding a growing population with less mechanisation, less fertilizer and more difficult transport issues.

One only needs to remember the Economist's previous ridiculous predictions about future oil production and prices to imagine how faulty their prognoses and opinions on population are.

The Economist article of last week was a re-run of the one published in New Scientist of some months back. At least New Scientist has the fortitude to put the name of the author alongside that of the article, which was by the rusted-on mathematically-illiterate cornucopian Fred Pearce.

So now we all know that the author is not happy with the current population trend. So what?

The real question is: "What can we do about this, excluding population crash due to resource wars and climate degradation?"

This question was not answered.

In the short term, the answer is "nothing".

I suggest that, since only those countries with reasonable wealth, adequate food and energy supplies, reasonable standard of living and assured personal security have ever voluntarily dipped below zero population growth, eg Japan, UK, USA (excluding immigrants) and various European countries, the single best strategy that concerned people can adopt is to promote those objectives and then to wait for at least 50 years, as the improved health and other outcomes work through societies.

The important thing is that these prerequisites, or something close to them, must be met globally if resource wars and mass starvation events are to be avoided further down the track.

For another short discussion, titled "Why Population Policy Will Not Solve The Climate Crisis" see:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/19/population-no-cc-fix-p1/

colinsett/michael_in_adelaide

Come now posters, we've been over all this before, and your gloomy pronostications have been, as you will recall, comprehensively rebutted. Michael Kile has nothing new to say. I have been reading population doomsayers since the 1970s, and have seen references to the concern in the literature of the 1930s. Kile would have to show why we should pay attention to his gloomy warnings as opposed to all the others in past decades which have not come to pass.

As far as the oil business goes, you guys still don't realise that the energy business has been completely revolutionised in the past couple of years. Apart from Fracking (Google it..) there have been gigantic undersea oil finds off the coast of Brazil and elsewhere. Sorry, but all the peak oil stuff is dead and gone.

However, Malthus was not wrong. Scholastic thinking is that he was right up until 1800 or so, as far as anyone knows. Up until that time, innovation just pushed up the population limit for a time.. then innovation became more constant to the point where it has been constantly pushing up the upper limit.

For a more comprehensive, and authorative, view of the theory try Gregory Clark's A Farewell to Alms. I'm not pushing all his arguments. The genetic stuff would stick in a lot of people's throats, but the discussion on Malthus and (the somewhat seperate issue of) labor quality is most interesting.

The only people who continually bag Malthus are ugly or socially inept people, not getting any sex, who figure somehow in their little undeveloped minds that increasing "the NUMBERS" increases their CHANCES.

WRONG!

They'll never 'get it' because evolution only creates EXPONENTIAL growth in finer genetic specimens who abhor the anti-Malthus neanderthals even more than current elite populations.

Until anti-Malthusians are firmly put in their place but given help instead of remonstrations their 'side-effect' of GLOBAL UNSUSTAINABILITY will evolve into Global WAR. Then everyone loses.

So, we all have a vested interest in dealing harshly with Anti-Mathusians.

For starters they need to be taught the SECOND LAW of THERMODYNAMICS (2LT) that says all systems are in fatal decay unless supplied regularly with cheap to free energy. Of course with endless population growth energy is getting more expensive by the minute and Thermodynamic decay is frontpage news, hovering all about.

Second, they must be taught that there are no BASELOAD energy options other than COAL and OIL. Uranium, solar and its wind derivitives are all prohibited by the 2LT from being converted to baseload energy without supplying more energy, mines,manufactur, transport &maintainence, than is produced.

Third, their simpleton notion that laws will prevent our children and grandchildren from breeding at some arbitrary 9billion population overlooks the role of oestrogen and testosterone. These hormones brook no limits to reproduction other than WWIII. And that is where we are headed all too soon.

The time for reproductiovity LIMITS &LAWS is NOW! And all must share the burden & the many benefits too.

Say NO to KIds!

I must admit that I was looking forward to a new vector of analysis on this well worn subject. I haven't found it here.

I think the anti-populationists would do better is they jettisoned Malthus and his wonky maths. I just returned for Japan and the government is faced with both an ageing population problem and an under population (youth) dilemma. Most of western Europe is in the same boat.

More simpleton notions.

WWIII may be a blessing as all such weak minds will be annihilated.

So keep breeding you Malthusogynist.

KAEP,

I believe that a range of contraceptive techniques have been introduced since Malthus. Reproduction is not the only issue in population growth: if everybody lived to a good age, and the replacement rate was reduced to zero, the population would still rise, as it aged.

But you overlook two main factors:

(1) Every aspect of food production processes can be improved. On 'The Inventors' a couple of months back, two blokes were demonstrating some sort of water filtation system which enabled the use of brackish water - this, they said, would double Australia's arable land. And how much water is wasted through leakage throughout the system from river to tap ? 20 % ? So there's a 140 % increase in food production just there, let alone improving yields, drought-resistance and water-use of plants, improvements in tillage, soil enrichment, storage, reduction of evaporation over bodies of water such as dams.

And very little of Africa's potential productive capacity has yet been tapped.

(2) Educate women around the world and the birth-rate will fall: women will have their children later, and fewer of them. Population growth is already negative in Japan and most of Europe to the point where a large and sustained immigration policy will be needed to maintain those societies. China will face the same problem in a couple of decades. Yes, population decline as a problem :)

A cause is not served by over-statement, KAEP.

KAEP
Maybe you could make your own declaration of support for Malthus by declaring that you will not have offspring - and maybe go off and live in a cave without internet access? Only way to be sure you don't leave a consumption footprint.

Michael Kile,

Thanks for your post on the occasion of the birth of the seventh billionth child.

We welcome its arrival into our happy midst.

Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong

1. Food production has peaked. The cost of oil based fertilisers became too expensive for further expansion after 2008 GFC.
When OIL goes $200 per barrel (V. soon) say Sayonnara Pollyanna. Meanwhile world populaion is rising EVERY year by 73 million and the rate is INCREASING

2. Women, educated & NOT, in case you, haven't noticed dress provocatively when the juices flow, for ONE reason. And it ain't to pleasure no man. Wake Up! You've been Hillaried. Clinton is the biggest promoter of world population growth on the planet. And its for American Hegemony not for Equal rights.

3. The SECOND LAW of THERMODYNAMICS does all the overstating. I can't stop it or compete. And if you think I overstate the case, think back to Yasi & VBlack Saturday.

4. I don't need offspring to complete my life. I have a mind. What I don't have is freedom from 73 million new humans EVERY year wanting to be first world consumers , stopping at nothing to achieve that while YOU sit around oblivious thinkingh you are the only one that's GOT one. Dill!

Say NO to KIds!

Its TIME to be SUSTAINABLE. Not BIGGER than Nature will ever allow on this pale blue dot at the behest of a few shagnasty politicians, CEOs and assorted other dissatisfied LOSERS who like Adolph Hitler will soon be wondering where they too went wrong.

It would appear that the anti-Malthus brigade do not understand simple mathematics. Let me explain in simple terms. If the world population was to increase at a rate of a very conservative one percent per year, in 100 years time it would increase by 2.7 times. This means that by 2111 the population would be around 19 billion. In a further 100 years it would be 51 billion and so on.

I notice that mention has been made of better contraception methods. It seems that in spite of this, fertilty rates have not fallen to anywhere near replacement rates except in Japan and a few others. Sooner or later, it is inevitable that the consumption of resources must completely overwhelm the supply which is exactly as Malthus predicted.

Cheryl, I suggest that you back and brush up on your own wonky maths.

David

Curmudgeon,

You admit that Malthus was right about the period before the Industrial Revolution. Since then, technology has mostly been able to keep ahead of population growth, although Gregory Clark's book points out that many Africans today actually have lower living standards than in the past. Your belief that technology will always manage to keep ahead, world without end, however, is purely a matter of faith, not knowledge. Our wonderful progress could just be the equivalent of a winning streak for a problem gambler. After all, the popular science writers of the 1940s and 1950s were predicting wonderful things for us today: flying cars, the elimination of cancer, regrowth of amputated limbs, nuclear power too cheap to meter, 20 hour work weeks, etc., etc. How do you know that some of the technologies we will desperately need will not also be in the too hard basket?

You are also either in denial on or just ignoring all the environmental issues. In Malthus' day, societies could overpopulate, do local environmental damage, and then collapse, but unlike us, they couldn't affect the great natural cycles that support life on earth. We are getting warnings from the mainstream scientific community, often in the most respected peer reviewed journals, on shortages or losses not just of oil, but of other key non-renewable resources such as phosphate rock, as well as arable land, fresh water, biodiversity, fish stocks, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. Marine chemist Richard Feely, for example, was on ABC radio last June and very concerned about ocean acidification due to all the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere. Measuring pH is hardly at the frontiers of science. The Global Footprint Network have done the math on our resource use and calculated that we are currently in 40% environmental overshoot, mostly because we are consuming renewable resources faster than they can be replenished.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2010

This implies that we could very well be in serious trouble even if population growth stops tomorrow. Why jump into the water before checking out how deep it is?

Curmudgeon,
I've still got all those "Doomsday" books, "Apocalypse 2000" is one that comes to mind, then there's the fiction of J.G Ballard, I've got pretty much everything he wrote, "The Drought","Running Wild" etc. The only one that's coming to pass is "The Camp Of The Saints" by Jean Raspail and that outcome was so blindingly obvious from the start.
There's always something freaking out White intellectuals and we're always doing fine, if there are no White people running around like chicken Little then that'd be the time I'd start worrying.
That's the thing, White people overcame scarcity maybe 10,000 years ago, so in the absence of any real pressing concerns regarding shortages or famine the clever White people have had to invent scenarios to worry about, I suppose they'd go mad if they didn't keep occupied.
There was a survey of East African primary producers a few years ago, when asked about the causes of crop failures and famines the most popular response was "God", followed by "Poor land management by neighbours".

Loudmouth,
Correction, a large and sustained immigration program has been implemented destroy those societies and replace Europeans with Non Whites.
Call it what it is, Genocide.
Why not just let Europe's population fall back to pre industrial levels if that's the way it's headed?
You want to educate Third world women to the level of their Western (White) sisters then presumably leave them be, let their populations drop back to a sustainable level of their own accord, why not let Europe go the same way.
Why does Europe's Third World population have to grow and the Third World's population of Third worlders fall?

I'm surprised at that post, usually you do a better job of concealing the fact that you're Anti White but in the end you guys always admit to what you really believe, you support Genocide in White countries and only White countries.

It is a pity that the level of debate at OLO is so degenerate. Nothing will convince the likes of Curmudgeon that mathematics is real and Cheryl is completely wedded to her contempt for anyone that threatens the idea of growth. What I would call the "anti-reality" fever has reached new heights as oil prices remain stubbornly high, Middle East nations dissolve into civil war sparked by high food prices and the economies of Europe and the USA collapse under the weight of ridiculous levels of debt. The "oil crunch" should arrive by 2014 or earlier and I wonder what Curmudgeon and his friends will say then? What will they blame the situation on as western economies collapse into depression and Australia struggles with "The recession that isn't our fault" (my guess at the Laboral slogan we will hear). As future food production declines and hunger increases (leading to more unrest leading to more hunger etc.) the problems with energy and food will probably be blamed on the unrest itself - blaming the symptom rather than the problem. That will allow conventional economic theory to continue its pretence of validity a little longer - maybe until the situation is so bad that nobody will care anymore what the likes of the "anti-reality" mob (or any mob) think - we will all just be so desperate trying to get by.

It will be fascinating to watch the comments by Curmudgeon and his friends evolve as the situation steadily worsens - although I have not seem much evolution recently - he seems to be in a rut of telling us how he has already proven the falsity of our "claims" and questioning why we don't understand that.

<I just returned for Japan and the government is faced with both an ageing population problem and an under population (youth) dilemma. Most of western Europe is in the same boat.>

Here we go again. Japan is doomed because of the ageing catastrophe and low fertility. Ditto for Europe. But what are the comparisons? Where are all the examples of countries with a high population growth rate, young populations and huge prosperity? I can think of plenty of cesspits of misery and deprivation that fit the bill. Surely even the most fanatical Cornucopians dont see a brighter future for the inhabitants of such places? It seems a completely illogical stance, much like viewing a wealthy estate and predicting collapse, then looking toward poverty stricken people living in cardboard boxes and predicting great prosperity.

Ther is no sense in such a view.

Michael. Their brains don't understand simple mathematics, so we should stop trying to enlighten them.

David

Fester, you are arguing details and ignoring the logical outcome of what it is they are justifying and Demanding.

No one is Demanding Japan become more diverse, ie less Japanese. Japan is 98.5% Japanese.

No one is Demanding Africa become more diverse, ie less Black.

No one is Demanding the Middle East become more diverse, ie less Arab.

They only make these Demands of all White countries and only White countries. "Anti-racists" openly celebrate a Brown Future, in all White countries.

They want White GeNOcide.

Some anti-Whites claim, it is all about wealth of White countries.

Asia and parts of the Middle East are wealthy, but anti-Whites ask regularly when dirt poor Eastern Europe, will be ready for this immigration.

So why must dirt poor Eastern Europe be "ready" and before the others?

They are White.

"Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out."

Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983)

Michael,
How are things "getting worse" and for whom are they getting worse?
It's crazy to think that our kids are going to starve, they won't, that's not the way the world works.
Very few people starve to death in this day and age and if they do it's usually along some arduous route to an aid station run by White people.
Hunger/poverty and starvation are not the same thing.
The average Indian would not tolerate living with the levels of material discomfort experienced by his parents, the whole idea of Third worlders being helpless is, dare I say it "Racist".
what's more the simple fact is that with more White people in the world the levels of material comfort for Third worlders will always grow because our race won't tolerate suffering among other tribes, let alone among our own.
The idea that White people will fail to secure at least basic provisions for all of the human tribes is simply, shall we say ..retarded, it's a retarded, stunted world view that denies both the present reality and normal human hopes for the future.

The reactions to "politically incorrect" dissent on this page are typical of the "beaten generation" above mine, Boomers and their acolytes need their doubt, fear and guilt like they need oxygen.
White people partnering and mentoring Third World governments will fix these short term problems, the planet is not going to collapse if there's a White scientist in every department of Agriculture across the globe.

Jay. "White people partnering and mentoring Third World governments will fix these short term problems, the planet is not going to collapse if there's a White scientist in every department of Agriculture across the globe."

Dream on.

David

Jay,

White people partnering Third World governments is already widespread. It usually takes the form of the IMF, World Bank or WTO jumping into bed with a corrupt regime - further impoverishing the general population and degrading the environment while funnelling profits to the elite within developing countries and global corporate interests beyond its borders. (See Egypt's experience for just one example)

At least I provided a link, colinsett.

>>The Economist article of last week was a re-run of the one published in New Scientist of some months back. At least New Scientist has the fortitude to put the name of the author alongside that of the article, which was by the rusted-on mathematically-illiterate cornucopian Fred Pearce.<<

You probably are unaware that The Economist does not provide its reporters with bylines, as a matter of policy.

Any chance you could provide a link to Fred's article, so we can compare them?

Incidentally, which part of the Economist piece - or indeed Fred Pearce's - did you object to?

Simplistic mathematics and models appeals to the pro-Malthusian lobby. They see the world as equivalent to a drink container being gradually emptied until there is nothing left. A nice image, sure, but completely wrong. Energy cannot be destroyed only transferred. Matter is recycled. Some energy sources could be used up in time but there is practically infinite energy available particularly at the nuclear level.

Humans are a relatively MINOR user of resources compared to all the other creatures on the earth. There are 200 billion insects for every human also using resources every day. A single plague of lucusts can eat enough food for an average city in a day.

Latter day Malthusians like Ehrlich have proven embarrasingly wrong on numerous occasions.

Why aren't Malthusians worried about the use of resources by other species? Surely they are finite too?

Divergence, Michael_in_Adelaide, VK3AUU and KAEP

Again, all these arguments have been refuted long ago. Time for some basic reading people. The science fiction writers of the 1950s also forecast nighmare worlds of the 1980s where the resources were all exhausted, and they got around New York in canoes (Make Room! Make Room! Harry Harrison).

The interplay between productivity and technical innovation is quite complex but basically it doesn't depend on any one breakthrough or invention. If you can point to any fundamental issue I'd like to hear it. As far as I know, no one has been able to point at any probable limit, at least not with any authority.

For example, KAEP assertion that food production has peaked is straight nonsense, a repeat of online hysteria. One of the main points mentioned by commentators on current high food prices (and they are high) is the amount of crop land gone to biofuels. For the record the other major factor is higher demand because of more people coming out of poverty, into the middle class, notably in Asia.

Will those higher prices last? No. If you think there is a limit on supply then look at the history of agriculture in the EU and how subsidies caused vast over-production. VK3AUU should dump his simple arithmetic and start looking at trends in agricultural productivity.

The assertions about fertiliser are also straight nonsense. Although petroleum is used to make fertiliser - as far as I know - so is natural gas (the stuff can be made out of air - look it up) and gas reserves have been going through the roof of late. Fertiliser is also mined.

You'll have to do a lot better than these tired old arguments to get my attention. I'm not the one in denial, or refusing to listen.

Curmy old chap, obviously you believe in alchemy. I wonder how you are going to make potash and phosphorus from natural gas. These two elements are also a necessary part of the fertilizer equation and as far as I know they are going to run out one day. Christmas Island and Nauru have both been mined out. Agriculture will be all organic with the consequence of yields being halved and ultimately, when all the nutrients in the soil have been used up, all our agricultural land will be reduced to a wasteland.

David

Poirot,
There you go again, blaming White people for the ills of the world.
Leaving aside the fact that many of the leading figures in those criminal organisations aren't even White why do you judge us by the so called "one percent"?
Do you judge all Black people by the actions of Julius Malema, or Coral Watts?
White people are the solution not the problem.
As I said, Boomers and their acolytes are addicted to White guilt, fear and despair, they need them like they need oxygen.

Jay,

You're right, I should gave tagged those organisations "Western" instead of "white".

Unlike you, I don't subscribe to the dictum that the colour of one's skin dictates the level of morality, intelligence or, for that matter, wisdom.

AlisonGraham

If you put a group of of white people in a tropical latitude for a few millennia their descendants would be black. And the dark humans who traveled from Africa to Europe have white progeny. Surely a preoccupation with race is an illogical fear, isn't it? Isn't the type of civilisation we live in the crux of the matter, and isn't that determined by education, infrastructure and economic prosperity? That is why I find it so strange that Cornucopian growth nuts are so pessimistic about places like Japan and Western Europe. I wonder whether they think the prospects of countries like India and China to be better?

VK3AUU
for heaven sake look up fertiliser and start reading.. you were the one who insisted that fertiliser comes from oil, which also does not contain potash and phosphorous. Nitrogen is a main ingredient and that comes from air, if they ever run out of mined fertiliser. The deposits you mentioned are mined out, but there is no suggestion of a fertiliser shortage.. I've heard of a projected fertiliser peak, but nothing's ever been shown .. as I said, get reading..

Poirot,
Neither do I, but race is real and it matters, the advances in technology and agricultural science that feed the multitudes will always go West to East.
Africans aren't "stupid" but their strengths lie in other areas, it's not called the developing world for nothing.
If there were no copyright laws or patents there'd still be White people who'd invent things just to give away to poor people, we overcame scarcity thousands of years ago and now we're motivated to make the world a better place. This forum is an example of that, a bunch of White people sitting about with nothing better to do but discuss how to improve the lives of others.
What I object to is the exploitation and perversion of White good will by Anti Whites, who use White guilt and false "evidence" of collective responsibility for world poverty to pursue an Anti White agenda.
It's not our fault, we're part of the 99%, blame the 1%.

Fester,
Joe made an Anti White comment, he wants the Third world population in White countries to grow while working toward population reduction in Third world countries.
He favours replacing most of the White people with non White people, he may claim to be anti Racist but what he is is Anti White, Anti Racist is just a code word for anti White.
He made this into a race problem, not Alison and I.

Curmudgeon. It wasn't me mate. I have a
Diploma of Applied Chemistry from Swinburne 1960. I have also been a dairyfarmer, there isn't a lot I don't know about fertilizer.

David

The FERTILISER industry’s main energy requirement is the hydrocarbon fuel and feedstocks(to get hydrogen) used in manufacturing ammonia. Virtually all nitrogen fertilizers are derived from ammonia, and ammonia production accounts for 87% of the fertiliser industry’s total energy consumption. The manufacture of all N fertilizers together accounts for about 94% of the fertiliser sector’s oil use.

Get used to it.

When oil runs out and CSG becomes anathema, Fertiliser production stops, so does agriculture, so does world peace and then so does this insanity of endless population growth for a curmudgeonly, mindless sea of lost souls on this finite planet.

Curmudgeon,

The idea of nuclear power too cheap to meter was not coined by a science fiction writer, but by Lewis Strauss, the Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, in a speech in 1954, where he said,

"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter... It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."

If we did have a breakthrough in terms of electrical energy too cheap to measure, there would not, of course, be biofuel crops displacing food crops and, among other factors, causing food riots around the world, as we saw in 2008. We could make all the liquid fuels we wanted using hydrogen from water and CO2.

Similarly, I doubt if President Nixon and his advisors envisaged such modest success as we have had when he launched the "War on Cancer".

Perhaps you ought to reconsider whether Cornucopian optimism is always justified, as it is in any case limited by the laws of physics.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

I also note that you have nothing to say about ocean acidification or other environmental issues.

thanks Atman for adding some sanity to a somewhat insane debate.

Atman,

Why aren't Malthusians worried about the use of resources by other species? Surely they are finite too?

Its a dumb ignorant question.

Because if other species eat into our resources (like rats and vermin) we class them as pests & hit 'em with the old Pea Bo er KILL 'em.

Over history humans have done the same thing to other humans in tough times. See Conan The Barbarian for a very accurate description of this. I always hated the Barbarians and thought they were evil. But when I see the overcrowding of today and the power rush of women having babies I no longer think its evil. When economics get a bit tighter, we'll see that again. Count on it!

When population reductions and technological consolidations ensue after protracted war the only question is who will be the winners?
And no matter who that is, It will always be the GOOD GUYS. IE the ones left standing. The ones writing the HISTORY.

Its just a pity that the human race cannot think past its sex hormone flows. I swear, 90% of this planet think they are the only ones who've got one and the other 10% evilly profit from that ignorance and stupidity by selling arms, drugs, i-pads and impossible dreams to a bunch of love starved, sex starved fools.

At some point, based on the TRUE story of oil reserves and the carrying capacity of 2 billion people in the 1900, pre-OIL, COAL based economy, 5 or 6 billion people HAVE to twitter & die .. along with their i-pads.

Do I wish this? No.
Do The laws of Physics and the lessons of history say it will happen? Most certainly.

Population growth is indeed the (taboo) elephant in the global room.

Given its global rate is now so rapid (another one billion new folk added to the planet in the past 12 years), the paradigm embraced by cornucopians, international agencies and others - that an "ecologically rational and socially just world" is achievable - is surely another utopian fantasy?

As Malthus argued in his 1798 Essay, the (potentially geometric/exponential) rate of human population growth ultimately would prevent real progress towards societal "perfectibility". Perhaps he was onto something?

"Non quantitas, sed qualitas."

Alice

The problem with fertiliser is that the poorest people are having
difficulty affording the food produced with more expensive fertiliser.
However there is a feedback loop in action.
Less and poorer food means malnutrition and malnutrition means a fall
in fertility. A fall in fertility means a fall in the birthrate.
So it is quite possible the world may avoid the massive famines that have been predicted.

Curmudeon, I find it hard to believe you have missed the reports that
have shown how the oil finds in Brazil etc, while large, but will take
10 years or more to get into full production, will by that time not
offset the depletion elsewhere.
These factors have been well covered on the Oil Drum by Gail the Actuary and others;
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8551#more
You must be aware that our world wide financial predicament is caused
by the fundamental changes wrought on our economies by the cost of
energy in whatever form it comes.

Dream on Bazz.

The world is adding 73million souls every year and american marketeers (Gates &Co) are for good or bad propping up women's rights to all the kids their hunger for POWER demands and in the process propping up fertility rates.

It is well known that the 73 million people per year rate is going to increase till energy stocks are depleted. Then the Marketers will turn to guns and Rabbit Fever to make profits and walk into new lands unopposed when a simple decontamination is performed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tularemia
it is easy to aerosolize,
it is highly infective; 10-50 bacteria are required to infect,
it is nonpersistent and easy to decontaminate (unlike anthrax),
it is highly incapacitating to infected persons, and
it has comparatively low lethality, which is useful where enemy soldiers are in proximity to noncombatants, e.g. civilians.

All this stupid and arbitrary talk of 9 billion by 2050, when a simple calculation based on 1 billion in the last 12 years yields a projected population of at least 10.3 billion, leads me to believe 2050 is planned to be the TURNAROUND.

However, information about the secrecy surrounding oil futures suggest that the free market TURNAROUND could be as early as a 9 billion population around 2030 when the OIL crunch has even been prdicted in Pentagon papers.


Never underestimate the power of the FREE market.

Can we change the system before its too late?

The following piece was censored over at SMHerald. It deals with the US spending big on Cyber weapons. It is worth putting here to show how slavish and facile our politicians are in having BIG population dreams of a BIG overpopulated Australian desert. It also shows the lack of wisdom in this course. Our politicians want to be remembered like Abraham Lincolns of America. They want to turn Australians into sardine-citizens to indulge their impossible lust for immortality. And we are all too afraid to tell them to pull their heads in.

>

Uncle Sam is developing expensive cyber weapons when he is very broke. But don't worry about his plight, WE are paying for the US to develop the new Cyber weapons.

If I print money to get a team of software developers, Its STEALING & I get Gaoled.

When America prints Tens of Trillions No One says its STEALING when it is. Gillard says gee our US investments are doing well. Ha, Only Labor could be this clever!

The TRUTH?

When the penny drops and everyone realises Uncle Sam is a THIEF, The US will need all the weaponry it can muster to DEFEND its Honour!

ITM, JULIA and Penny dropper Wong are crowing about a planet saving Carbon Tax While boosting millions of 'Modern Warfare' IMMIGRANTS who will make the projected CO2 savings look like PEANUTS. Is this Schizophrenia or arrogance?

Dopey O'Farrell is planning for 2 million more Asians coming to the new Slumdog Sydney to boost his tax revenue. The increased CO2 from those Xtra folks alone will make The Carbon Tax irrelevant. The whole of Sydney every morning wakes to a poison air factory smogtail while O'Farrell's EPA is taking a dirt-nap. The health implications are impossible to manage NOW.

They say you get the Government you deserve. But I am not so stupid as to deserve O'Farrell or Gillard or Wong.

Its as if these people are junkies addicted to something.

Its Deja Vu.

Ever heard junkies say with such conviction how they are HEROES when YOU just know they are F'd units?