Racially homogenous societies are FAR more stable than racially diverse ones.
Proof: http://www.amazon.com/Conflict...

And... not every race has the same average IQ. Therefore, not every race is capable of building/maintaining a 1st world nation.
Proof: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

And... if diversity is a strength, why does China have self-autonomous regions?

Science 101: Birds of a feather flock together. People are tribal by nature.

What can I say Peter. Lomborg is off the planet!!

His whole argument seems to be that because limits to growth hasn’t happened yet - because there have been lots of predictions that haven't eventuated – it’s never going to happen!

This is just bizarre!

He seems to have absolutely no concept of scale – no idea that the scale of resource consumption undertaken by humans is absolutely humungous and still rapidly increasing. And for goodness sake; how obvious is it that it cannot just continue to increase indefinitely.

OF COURSE there are limits to growth!

Crikey, this has got to be silliest thing I have ever debated on OLO!

I may as well be defending the notion that the world is a globe against the flat-earthers!

The concept of innovation saving the day is just as bizarre! We’ve been trying for decades to come up with energy sources that are somewhere near as cheap and utilisable at the enormous scale that oil, coal and gas are… and we are not within a million miles of achieving it!

<< Did you consider the probability that 200,000 years of increasing per capita energy consumption would suddenly be reversed just when we happen to be here? >>

Yes. There's a very big probability because there are enormous differences now to what there has been at any time in the last 200 000 years, namely; a world population that is many times bigger than it was even 100 years ago, and a rate of energy consumption, very largely from non-renewable sources, that is hundreds of times higher than it was even a hundred years ago.

And hey, energy is NOT getting cheaper any more. Even Lomborg said;

< Since 2001 prices have more than doubled >

Indeed we are seeing the steady rise in the cost of fuel and electricity.

Ludwig, I suggest it is you that is off the planet. Clearly, you haven't understood what I've been saying - apparently it's gone right over your head.

Well, I have been debating this stuff on OLO for nearly a decade, and for many years before that in various other ways. I must have heard every bizarre argument under the sun. But I don’t think I have ever previously encountered anyone who has denounced the very notion of limits to growth.

Peter, could you spell out, in point form, the basic principles of your argument. I can’t imagine that I have misunderstood you. But in the interests of clarification, it might be useful. Thanks.

Regarding this link that you posted, Peter: http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/pielke/ :

Another fellow who is off the planet!

Did you read the comments following the article?

BTW, just to clarifiy - I am not against economic growth. I’m against continuous expansionism. That is: continuous population growth and all the expansion in resource consumption and environmental alienation that goes with it.

I am fully in favour of economic growth that is directed at improving the quality of life for the existing population, just as long as it is environmentally-friendly and sustainability-oriented.

I am against the notion of economic growth that simply duplicates services and infrastructure for ever-more people, without leading to improvements for the pre-existing population.

One of the fundamental problems with the likes of Pielke, and Lomborg, is that they don’t seem to differentiate at all between good and bad growth, between economic growth that leads to real improvements and population growth and the consequent economic growth that it creates, which leads to no significant improvements for the whole society or for the established residents.

They seem to treat all growth as one single entity, and anyone who questions growth as questioning all growth, good and bad. This is extremely poor for analysts/academics of their ilk!

Pielke’s comments on different growth types completely miss this vital point!

Ludwig,

You continually make unsubstantiated assertions and state your beliefs. That's just religion. I can't make contact with you. Sorry. No point continuing.