Thank you, Divergence. I really enjoy some of the journeys that OLO takes me on, and this was one of them.

Until today, I had never heard of the Haber-Bosch process.

Nor had I ever knowingly read anything from Discover Magazine.

Mind you, from the sample provided, that's probably not a great loss. Sort of Readers Digest, gussied up with faux-demotic familiarity...

"...a grateful Lord will one day wash your tired feet in Paradise. For it is from here, looking east, that you get to see the truth—long known in the scientific community, and as a consequence long kept quiet—that Mr. So-Called Charles Darwin, with his dumb beard and his dumb theories, born 200 years ago this very year, was wrong. Not just a little bit wrong. A lot wrong. Wronger than a bluetick hound on moonshine. Wronger than a Dixie Chick wearing a blindfold. And he could, additionally, be a real pain in the you-know-where about it."

Classic.

But I think I may be missing your point a little.

>>it is all being subverted by mindless growthism<<

Having made the very strong and valid point that civilizations tend to self-manage their growth and shrinkage, are you suggesting that what we are experiencing now is somehow different? Or is it just another go-round of the same cycle?

From the macro viewpoint, you are of course correct in pointing out that decline is ultimately inevitable. Just as RawMustard is perfectly right at his own, micro level, that "it was wonderful out here 20 years ago, it's a hell hole now".

But declines, as you showed us, have never been permanent.

And hey, where did I paint a "picture of conditions always getting better"?

I simply pointed out that despite their overcrowded conditions, large cities around the world seem to continue to rub along. And since it is unlikely that we in our lifetime will see conditions that allow, say, the inhabitants of Kolkata slums to live in the same comfort as yourself and RawMustard, we would do well to consider that we are, comparatively, well off.

Pericles,

I posted the link to the Discover article because it had a discussion of LeBlanc's ideas that was available for free on the Web. Discover is a popular science magazine and doesn't pretend to be anything else. Sneer if you like, but the point is

"The fundamental, underlying reason for warfare is competition over scarce resources," says LeBlanc. "It's not to prove your manhood, it is not to gain prestige, it is not because of inherent genetic blood lust, or anything like that. You're fighting for survival because there are always more people than there are resources. And the only times you have peace are when there are a lot of resources."

Decline is horrific, not a nicely self-managed process. If you doubt this, read some eyewitness accounts of the Irish Potato Famine or the Rwanda Genocide.

You seem to imply that we should feel guilty about wanting some personal space, that we are rich because Third World people are poor. Nothing could be further from the truth, although we should certainly help, if we can do this without making the long term situation worse. The main reason why people are desperately poor in Kolkata and other places is because they as a society made the traditional human choice of putting the benefits of Haber-Bosch (developed in Germany), the Green Revolution (mostly developed in the US), modern medecine, etc. into more babies rather than into development and making poverty history. South Korea, on the other hand, went from poorest country on Earth in 1960 to First World country in 35 years. Taiwan and Singapore made similar advances.