Note also, in spite of having half the wages, of city workers, the rural poor had a vastly better life expectancy, even if low in absolute terms.

This lends further weight to my point that increases in 'real wages' as measured by economists are not a good indication of prosperity as I wrote in "Living standards and our material prosperity" of 6 Sep 2007 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6326&page=0

In fact the real step backwards in living standards in the second Millennium occurred as a result of the Norman conquests. Prior to then, the quality of life in much of England, in terms of life expectancy came pretty close to what we have enjoyed in Western Countries in the 20th century.

The Black Deaths did improve the quality of life for the survivors (if, obviously, not for the victims), but the evidence suggests that it never returned to what it was prior to the Norman conquest and, at that, at a terrible cost to the earth's natural capital.

Rhian's stats also neglect the terrible price paid by those who were colonised who were forced off their land and made to work for a pittance or as slaves on the large ecologically ruinous plantations (see "Dirt - the Erosion of Civilisation" (2007) by David Montgomery) that were necessary to feed Britain's Satanic Mills.

So, the evidence that humankind has enjoyed sustained improvements in its quality of life and without cost to the environment as time has progressed would seem to be very shaky indeed.

---

At least Rhian has attempted to argue his case with some reference to facts and figures which is a lot more than what can be said of Clownfish, Cheryl, mil-ob, etc.

Argue the case? Here goes.

Look at the IPCC report. Their scenario to reduce population is globalisation.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/093.htm#1

"In the A1 scenario family, demographic and economic trends are closely linked, as affluence is correlated with long life and small families (low mortality and low fertility). Global population grows to some nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100."

Roughly speaking, the A1 family is where we pursue a global capitalist economy as opposed to A2 (capitalist and regional), B1 equitable and global, B2, equitable and regional.

That's not just some wild eyed classical liberal (myself) speaking. That's actually the IPCC. Your mates. And it's one of the basic assumptions which underlies the entire study of climate change. Yes, the whole of the IPCC program to look at climate change depends upon those four families of economic models.

Be useful if those pontificating on climate change, on mass sterlilisation programs and pushing refugee boats back out to sea, had actually bothered to read the report, don't you think?

*It's fair to acknowledge that Julian Simon made mistakes, nonetheless, his general thesis has still held up well. *

Well yes he did make mistakes, for Simon was an economist.
He tried to value biodiversity. Sadly his knowledge of biology
was lacking for without biodiversity, you won't have a humanity.

Rhian, I admit to not reading all your posts in every detail,
but I get the gist of your argument. Where I have a problem
with it, point out where I am wrong, your implication seems
to be that higher population leads to higher standard of living
and longer life expectancy.

Clearly it is innovation that has brought about those changes,
like the development of anti biotics, vaccines, etc.

We can show that when people have smaller families, their
kids land up being better educated. So I do not confuse
optimum human population, with breeding like rabbits.

Bangaladesh, Philipines, Rwanda etc, don't make huge contributions
to scientific progress, despite breeding like rabbits in the
past.

After reading several neo-Malthusian responses , it becomes clear that there is a profound degradation at play here, not only in a simple moral and philosophical sense, but also in the more straightforward processes we call "logic and reasoning".

Notice how neo-Malthusians alter opponents' original statements in order to extrapolate altogether quite different arguments. My point about poor countries' higher birthrates got twisted and reduced into some neoliberalist, individual-cultish and liberal-feminist tosh claiming that I asserted instead that women in poor countries make an individual CHOICE to have more children [anansi]! Collective factors of family, wider society, religion and state could have no compatible or otherwise positive role by such a worldview either; they would be factors intrinsically opposed to the mother's own self-interest. And by such a simplistic and blinkered view, any woman must be deemed "oppressed" if NOT choosing to have few or no children ["Anybody who thinks that the women in the third world WANT to have many children must be bonkers"]

Next we have Yabby's simplistic claim that "your [Rhian's] implication seems to be that higher population leads to higher standard of living and longer life expectancy". Yabby gets little "gist" of anything in Rhian's detailed, lucid explanation of inter-related and long-term trends in population, life expectancy and living standards.

The neo-Malthusians' linear thinking and reptilian urges keep putting carts before horses, then they just keep cracking their whips.

Except dag. His approach is to conjure mystical "blood and soil" sentiments against industrialization, a la the inbred Prince Charles' typically regressive musings, or the feudal lifestyle of "green" neo-aristocrat Sting, who boasts of feeding on organic produce grown and harvested by tenants on his estates.

But we should be grateful for dagget's (comparative) honesty. Without dag's creative, regressive and infantilist nostalgia for pre-industrial society, we could fail to see the neo-Malthusians' essential political prescription for humanity i.e., fascist primordialism. Whether they wish slaughter, disease, sterilization or compulsory birth control are just side issues of detail, or personal style.

What else do these fascists call humans they deem beneath themselves? "Ants" [anansi], "rabbits" [Yabby] or just "bacilli"?

Neo-Malthusian apologias for genocide are not new: divergence touted Rwanda's case (and Ireland's) previously [see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8409&page=0#133300 ]. Perhaps the most sinister aspect of such claims are that they are at odds with one overwhelming fact: Rwanda had no actual widespread death toll from a malnutrition crisis prior to the Rwandan genocide. Therefore, details of organization and logistics contradicted such claims of a Rwandan "finite resources" problem before the mass murders. Does Q&A imply that mass murders were somehow a preventative effort *in anticipation* of such famine later? If so, it must be Q&A's wishful thinking only, unsupported by historical facts.

In these regards neo-Malthusianism seems more "occult" than mere "cult".

Let's look beyond divergence's claims about "arable land per person" in Rwanda's case.

Studies show very convincingly how Rwanda's 1994 genocide arose from policies associated with ethnic-based state power structures, migration, and the local Ruriganiza Famine of 1989. But note that the "famine" itself was not a famine in the sense that it brought widespread death from starvation; rather, it was a food crisis that disrupted society by:

- encouraging local Rwandan emigrations;
- intensifying pressures of deliberate migration from outside, especially in a Tutsi-based rebel "return" invasion based from Uganda (as repeated and manipulated in the Congo cases since), and;
- combinations of defensiveness, brinkmanship and neglect from Rwanda's ruling government.

In short, the Ruriganiza Famine largely affected Rwanda's cattle-herding Tutsi in the south. To their misfortune, Rwanda's president was:

- a Hutu from the north;
- little supported in the affected area,
- keen to avoid directly or indirectly supporting revanchist Tutsi opposition elements and, accordingly;
- against distributive or other relief measures, adhering instead to his long-established agenda of "local self-sufficiency".

Therefore, President Habyarimana opted for a local famine "response" of "no response". In other words, his approach was either deliberately or unwittingly Malthusian; his neglect for the local southern Rwandan famine sought political stability from population and agricultural instability.

Into this tinder box, Habyarimana was assassinated when his presidential aircraft fell to a missile attack, responsibility for which remains unclear and disputed.

Good old Daggett, yet again using data from a highly specific time and place - in this case, Manchester in the early throes of the Industrial Revolution - to argue that our quality of life has barely improved since before the Norman Conquest! (OK, perhaps I'm interpreting him wrong, if so, I stand to be enlightened).

But, Daggy demands facts and figures, so facts and figures he shall have.

First, I might direct him to DeLong's estimates of global GDP per capita, from 0-2000CE, which shows a slight increase from 0-late 1800s (with the occasional dip for such events as the Black Death), from whence it skyrockets upwards with nary a break.

DeLong actually estimated global GDP back to 1MCE, as can be seen here: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/1998_Draft/World_GDP/Estimating_World_GDP.html

Increased prosperity can also be seen from such indirect indicators as infant mortality from 1950-2050 (prediction from 2000, UNDP), the average height of adult men 1775-1975 (Fogel 1989:50, Burnette & Mokyr 1995:144), daily intake of calories per capita (FAO 2001a) and even illiteracy and education.

Ah, but what of the future, Daggett will ask? All these good time can't continue forever - Malthus said so!

The most amusing set of figures here come from that holiest-of-holies, the IPCC itself. In its various scenarios, the IPCC envisages that income for developing countries by the end of the next century will, at worst, be on a par with developed countries today! Not only that, forest cover will most likely have increased and renewable energy will most likely explode. (IPCC 2000b, 2001a, IPCC/DDC 2001).

Surely Daggy's not going to argue with the IPCC?