America's indigenous population was kept low because of the limitations of their technology, often the lack of suitable crops, especially in the colder areas, and the lack of suitable domestic animals. See Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs and Steel". There were very dense populations in the Aztec Empire and elsewhere in the New World, before the majority of the population were wiped out by Old World diseases.

Populations were kept relatively stable by unremitting tribal warfare. "Constant Battles" by Prof. Steven LeBlanc (Archaeology, Harvard) contains a first hand account of excavations in the American Southwest, among other places. Instead of noble, peaceful Indians in harmony with Nature and each other, he reports fortifications, environmental damage, whole villages massacred and the bodies left unburied, collections of trophy heads, etc. Prof. Lawrence Keeley (Archaeology, University of Chicago) writes (p. 91) in his book "War Before Civilization": "My own first excavation training was on a prehistoric village site on the San Francisco Bay in California. Thousand year old skeletons with obsidian arrowheads embedded in the bones, missing heads, and other signs of violent death were so common that our excavation crew referred to burials as 'bad sights'." LeBlanc and Keeley report many similar findings all over the world.

Divergence

Interesting info on old N Am cultures. Surely the historical evidence you’re presenting reinforces my point. Different resource endowments, technologies and cultures have supported different population densities, sometimes stable, sometimes not; sometimes prosperous, sometimes not.

While on occasion populations have been constrained by lack of resources, Malthus’ proposition that population must inevitably expand to absorb an increase in productive capacity is demonstrably false. In most developed countries, including Australia, fertility rates are below replacement rates. I challenge you to explain how this can in any way be compatible with what Malthus said.

I am not familiar with the “World3”, model, but I am familiar enough with modelling to know that its results are products of its assumptions. Without knowing the assumptions the equations are based on it’s hard to comment on the results, but a quick Google suggests it’s linked to the Club of Rome, hardly a neutral or independent voice in the “Limits to Growth” debate. And it does seem to me that any model that predicts that populations will crash because economic growth causes pollution is seriously flawed in its specification of how people respond to problems and threats. All our recent experience demonstrates that rich societies have a lower tolerance for pollution than poor ones. Pollution in Australian cities is declining. It’s estimated that London’s air quality is the best it has been since the 16th century (http://myurbanrevolution.com/2010/02/09/interesting-excerpts-from-naked-economics/) and its still below European standards, so will have to improve further.

Likewise, the definition of “economic resource”, or indeed “resource”, is not fixed but changes depending on demand, technology, etc. Oil was not a resource at all until the nineteenth century, when people worked out how to use it for energy on a significant scale. The US energy industry has recently been transformed by the development of unconventional gas that until recently was not deemed economic to produce. As things become scarce, their prices rise, and people have the incentive to discover, develop or devise an alternative. That is the market economy at work.

Rhian,

Malthus thought that population growth could be limited by moral restraint. As stated above, I think that societies can get out of the Malthusian trap and that some have actually done so. This is not under dispute by anyone, so far as I know.

So far as World3 is concerned, the New Scientist article also claims that Limits to Growth was never actually disproved, that there was an media campaign to discredit it, similar to what is going on now with climate change, "The political right rejected its warning about the dangers of growth. The left rejected it for betraying the aspirations of workers. The Catholic Church rejected its plea for birth control." Graham Turner at the CSIRO has done a detailed statistical analysis of how real growth compares to the scenarios in Limits. "He concluded that reality so far closely matches the standard run of World3." This is not to say that models should be treated as gospel, but it is clear that the technological optimists must come up with multiple solutions to multiple threats, not just one magic bullet. Exporting our pollution to the Third World doesn't count.

You might also consider the War on Cancer that was inaugurated in the US with great fanfare by President Nixon. There was certainly strong demand for cures for cancer, backed up by large sums of money from government and private interests. Yet success has been quite modest. Some problems are just plain hard. Do you really want to bet the farm that all of them will be solved? I find that arguing with technological optimists, however, is like arguing with Creationists about evolution. It is a matter of religious faith, even if it means ignoring the laws of physics

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

So, if countries with the highest pop growth rates can ameliorate the detrimental effects of over-population by engaging the capitalist model, how will cherry picking the best minds in those countries (to accelerate the capitalist cause in the West) help achieve that goal? Isn't this another form of colonial exploitation?

I often hear people argue that we are "helping developing countries" by importing their talent. It seems to me that all we are doing is trying to facilitate the accelerated rape of our own land by importing intellectual capital from impoverished nations. And, if we are not raping our own land we are importing materials from the poor nations to sate the Western consumer appetite that inexorably grows through both technological redundancy and population growth based on the importation of production units/consumers to live the Western "lifestyle". Given the violence and corruption that goes hand in hand with Western economic and political exploitation of Third World nation's resources, exactly how are we helping?

Also, we hear about the benefits of educating women, but what good is that to an educated women when she ultimately is subject to the vagaries and subjugations of a patriarchal society? Would you love the idea more than you fear the fist?

Now here's a serious, non-rhetorical question, how many of you pro-growthers (immigration supporters) and pop blinkers (AKA "human pop growth is no problem", E.G. the technological solution is just around the corner etc) do not financially benefit from pop growth? How many of you are of pure ideological belief and can sustain the argument with empirical evidence that is divorced from your own vested interest? cont...

cont...

Another thing bothering me lately is how we have heard for years that the pop with stabilise at around 9 billion. Lately, the 12 billion figure has begun to emerge. Was there ever any science behind the 9 bil figure? Was it just a sop to placate emerging concerns? Has the population for any species ever naturally plateaued before ecological limitations begin to dictate? Or do they just crash and burn like dumb beasts? Why are we supposed to be different when our behaviour mirrors every other species' rush to ecological precipices? Every call for frugality, moderation and caution with resource use is met with hysterical campaigns motivated by short-term self interest. Just look at what has happened to natural forests or the way the pokie industry reacted to moves to protect people who are afflicted with pathological addiction that is plainly detrimental to society.

12 bil, who cares!? I'm in for my chop NOW! F the kids! It's a hedonistic catch cry that is inbuilt into the inherent excesses on fundamentalist capitalism. With the term "fundamentalist capitalism" I mean the notion that acquiring money is the be all and end all of human existence. I'm sure you'll understand regardless of which side of the fence you sit. Making money has been elevated above all other considerations such as society or maintenance of the environment that sustains us.

BTW Cheryl, half wit hippies are on your side in this one. They're into "no borders and no infringement on personal freedoms". Fundamentalists at both ends of the spectrum have a lot in common.

As it stands, I think every person is entitled to at least one child. With natural attrition that would allow the human population to stabilise and eventually decrease to whatever level is ultimately sustainable be any measure. The Earth has a finite number of atoms within its systems, therefore it follows that it can only sustain a finite number of humans. When the majority of the human population understands this, the greedy, egotistical, superstitious, ignorant and plain stupid will have to get with the program.

A sagacious piece Sardine.

Everyone with a BRAIN on this planet knows you are correct.

But Because of Oestrogen, WOMEN must have all the children necessary to live a respectable and comfortable life. All sorts of statistics can be assembled to show they are not destroying other cultures, ecologies, climate and environments. For when they are dead they are no longer statistically significant.

And because of Testosterone MEN must agree with women on the above since they KNOW its the ONLY way they will ever get laid even if its unsatsfactory.

CEO's and Politicians KNOW this evil is endemic and say "I can become famous with this knowledge" .. "So long as I can transcend my own hormonal urges, encourage this selfishness, hide all the negative consequences, reward all the negative behaviours and above all DEMONISE ANYONE who dares tells the TRUTH".

There wouldn't be but a handful of people in the world today who for some unknown reason believe in TRUTH and JUSTICE and are prepared to stand tall and say so.

God help them!

The majority of the human race are LIARS. LIARS always get ENTANGLED in their own worst mischief and that means the human race is headed for extinction as soon as Oil's Free-Energy trickles to a too-expensive dead end in about a decade.
All the phony shale-gas, Nuclear and German style BS Renewables which are FULLY reliant on oil and coal and which are just a FRONT-END for the fossil fuel industries will grind to a halt when you can't get fuel for maintenance and servicing. How can people NOT understand this