Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby dinopello » Wed 05 Nov 2014, 22:39:44

Was Malthus right?

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')is main contribution was to highlight the relationship between food supply and population. Humans do not overpopulate to the point of starvation, he contended, only because people change their behavior in the face of economic incentives
.

This is basic supply and demand ?
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby Keith_McClary » Wed 05 Nov 2014, 23:22:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I') also offer the further, completely unrestrained growth of Capitalism, increased/almost unlimited personal freedom ...
as long as we can pay our rent to the owners of the company towns space habitats.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby kublikhan » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 01:02:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'H')e's got to be pulling your leg. We don't need no stinkin' planet! :razz: Maybe he's yanking your breathing tube
Perhaps KJ is a sock puppet account for some Luddite lurker who is trying to reinforce the folly of faith in technology by going to absurd extremes. That seems more probable than having trillions of people living in space caves.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby Newfie » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 08:29:27

More likely he is just getting his jollies by leading us around in absurd circles, because he can and we can't stop following.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby KaiserJeep » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 10:53:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'M')ore likely he is just getting his jollies by leading us around in absurd circles, because he can and we can't stop following.


The truth of the matter: PO.com is full of depressed Doomers, wallowing in mutual misery, and reassuring one another that humanity is SO DOOMED while sharing tips about how to survive the die-off for a few precious days or weeks, so as to further wallow in self-congradulations, before they too die.

Nobody gets out of life alive.

The problem all of you have is that I am suggesting a CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVE to "everybody dies". I am saying that ALMOST EVERYBODY DIES, a few lucky folks survive by leaving the planet, and then pretty much everybody else - 99.whatever% of the total - dies on schedule, probably still protesting that space travel is impossible. But the most capable cannibals - the fraction of 1% that can compete for food better than the others, survive - and human evolution takes a step forward after the weak ones are culled (eaten).

Then the space survivors of the great die-off swear off visiting the hell-holes called planets forever, or almost forever. Perhaps they fund "Earth Missions" from space to seek out and recover samples of surviving plant & animal species needed to further perfect the ecologies of the space habitats. Such "Earthnauts" would be highly trained professionals, psychologically prepared to face the hostile, uncontrolled environment of a planet, an unimaginably dangerous, unmanaged environment, with horrors such as WEATHER, CLIMATE, FLOODS, EARTHQUAKES, VOLCANOES, and possibly the ultimate horror: CANNIBAL DEMOCRATS.

The space habitats will watch with bated breath the live TV coverage. They will place bets about how many days the intrepid Earthnaut will survive, how many species he will recover and preserve in his landing craft, before the Earth natives, all with savage painted faces and teeth filed to points, make supper of him. Then the takeoff of the landing craft will be remotely triggered, the precious DNA of the mission target species recovered, and a monument will be erected to the brave man who perished in the Hell called Earth.

Now the raging debate resumes: Are planetary missions worth the cost? Could we not use that money to add sublevel 14 to cylinder 2347? Certainly those unfortunate occupants of sublevel 14 will have to endure increased cosmic radiation plus (shudder) almost 0.6 gravities of constant simulated gravity! We will of course, fill the new level with drones who have never worked and never completed their education. They have to have a motive to work themselves into a better environment with lower gravity and better shielding, after all.

Did you hear about the scandal in the zero-G hockey playoffs? The captain of the VonBrauns...
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby Lore » Thu 06 Nov 2014, 11:56:35

I consider myself a pragmatist. If that leads me into the direction of pain and misfortune, so be it. Am I depressed about it? Not at all. I feel saddened for the ignorance that abounds which is taking humans down the path of no return, but then again nothing lasts forever. Enjoy everyday like it was your last, someday it will be.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby Subjectivist » Sat 08 Nov 2014, 18:59:21

II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4705
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby JohnnyOnTheFarm » Sat 08 Nov 2014, 20:34:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', '
')The Solar System has enough space, enough power, enough water, and enough raw materials to build space habitats for Trillions of people.


True. But it might be considered starry eyed dreaming in a world that thinks a small drop in production or increase in consumption of a single, admittedly valuable, commodity will cause some big dieoff or whatever.

But obviously you aren't the first to think of such an ambitious, and even reasonable, scenario.

Ringworld anyone?

Image
JohnnyOnTheFarm
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun 02 Nov 2014, 21:04:25
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby dorlomin » Sun 09 Nov 2014, 12:19:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'W')as Malthus right?

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')is main contribution was to highlight the relationship between food supply and population. Humans do not overpopulate to the point of starvation, he contended, only because people change their behavior in the face of economic incentives
.

This is basic supply and demand ?
No he was opposed to free trade. He argued against David Riccardo and "comparative advantage", where a nation pursues what it is best at and trades the wealth from that for other things. So he believed the UK should not trade its manufactured goods for cheap US corn.

He was "right" in the trivial case that people can eventually grew to numerous to feed themselves. But by any other measure he was wrong. Reactionary and out of date in the 1830s sums him up really.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby KaiserJeep » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 16:47:09

I think Malthus was right on the money with his math, but left one factor out of his equation. He correctly showed that human population growth is an exponential curve, while food production grows only on a geometric curve.

What he did not understand was the power of technology. He did not realize that the power of fossil fueled machines plus fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides would enable one farmer to produce the food that required 3000 farmers using 19th century Agrarian methods.

Ultimately, Malthus will be proved correct, after the exponential population growth overcomes that incredible 3000X geometric multiplier - or we run out of cheap fossil fuels with no affordable replacement power sources.

The tragedy is that there were roughly 1B humans to starve in 1800. There will be 8B or 10B or 12B by the time we run out of cheap fossil energy.

Malthus was not the only one to fail to anticipate the impact of technology. So did Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Nor did any of the 19th century minds anticipate the tech we have today which enables space travel and opens the rest of our Solar System to exploitation for the benefits of humans.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby dorlomin » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 19:43:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I') think Malthus was right on the money with his math, but left one factor out of his equation. He correctly showed that human population growth is an exponential curve, while food production grows only on a geometric curve.
Clarify please.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby MonteQuest » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 20:34:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', ' ')Planets are not necessary or desirable.


There is an ecological saying, "Nature abhors a vacuum." She will fill each and every nook and crevice with life, yet she has yet to fill the vacuum of space with so much as a spore.

Planets are not only necessary, they are essential to life.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby Quinny » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 20:44:08

too?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', 'W')as Malthus right?

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')is main contribution was to highlight the relationship between food supply and population. Humans do not overpopulate to the point of starvation, he contended, only because people change their behavior in the face of economic incentives
.

This is basic supply and demand ?
No he was opposed to free trade. He argued against David Riccardo and "comparative advantage", where a nation pursues what it is best at and trades the wealth from that for other things. So he believed the UK should not trade its manufactured goods for cheap US corn.

He was "right" in the trivial case that people can eventually grew to numerous to feed themselves. But by any other measure he was wrong. Reactionary and out of date in the 1830s sums him up really.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby MonteQuest » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 20:47:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', ' ') They are nasty places at the bottom of energy-expensive gravity wells. You can transit from one zero-G environment to another with minimal energy expenditure as long as you don't have to descend and then lift off in a gravity well.


Then why not build a dome here on earth, rather than at the top of an "energy-expensive gravity well"?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby MonteQuest » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 20:55:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', ' ') But the most capable cannibals - the fraction of 1% that can compete for food better than the others, survive - and human evolution takes a step forward after the weak ones are culled (eaten).


You confuse "survival of the fittest" with the "struggle for survival." The former influences evolution; the latter does not.

And in case you are still confused, you are talking about the "struggle for survival."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby MonteQuest » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 21:00:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnnyOnTheFarm', 'T')rue. But it might be considered starry eyed dreaming in a world that thinks a small drop in production or increase in consumption of a single, admittedly valuable, commodity will cause some big dieoff or whatever.


Tell that to every other species that experienced a die-off as a result of losing the energy subsidy that allowed them to proliferate. If we are different, then why did we allow our species to proliferate to the point of ecological ruin?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby MonteQuest » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 21:06:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', 'I') think Malthus was right on the money with his math, but left one factor out of his equation. He correctly showed that human population growth is an exponential curve, while food production grows only on a geometric curve.

What he did not understand was the power of technology.


No, what he did not anticipate was us finding a temporary energy subsidy on the scale of fossil fuels.

"Necessity is the mother of invention; but energy is the father." --MonteQuest
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby KaiserJeep » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 22:59:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '-')snip-

Then why not build a dome here on earth, rather than at the top of an "energy-expensive gravity well"?


Because this is the surface of a planet that is rapidly becoming unsuitable to live on. Renewable energy is limited and fossil energy is running short. Clean water, unspoiled food, living space, and energy supplies are all being consumed by an overshoot population that will not vanish silently into the night. Instead they will eat and drink and kill and crowd out all other species, while consuming all the readily accesible minerals and fossil fuels.

It is already the case that many minerals such as copper, nickel, and even iron are no longer available on the surface of the Earth. Mines tunnels reach 2 miles into the Earth's crust and more into the Earth and open pits like the Bingham Canyon Open Pit Copper Mine are 2.5 miles across and 0.6 miles deep. All the presently accessible minerals - even coal - are impossible to mine without fossil fuels.

Understand that all the damage has happened in the last 200 years. When the giant meteor killed all thye dinosaurs 62 million years ago, it struck the Yucatan peninsula, and animals and plants died steadily for 1300 years before the recovery began, after 95+% of all plants and animals were dead.

The human overshoot population is killing the planet about 4X as fast as that. We are the fastest and deadliest of the mass extinction events recorded in the fossil record. At age 63 I have personally seen about a third of the damage done so far.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby KaiserJeep » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 23:01:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', ' ')Planets are not necessary or desirable.


There is an ecological saying, "Nature abhors a vacuum." She will fill each and every nook and crevice with life, yet she has yet to fill the vacuum of space with so much as a spore.

Planets are not only necessary, they are essential to life.


Planets are only necessary for the evolution of life. We can build better, bigger, and cheaper habitats that are healthier places to live than a planet.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland
Top

Re: Was Thomas Malthus right the whole time?

Postby KaiserJeep » Wed 19 Nov 2014, 23:04:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', ' ') But the most capable cannibals - the fraction of 1% that can compete for food better than the others, survive - and human evolution takes a step forward after the weak ones are culled (eaten).


You confuse "survival of the fittest" with the "struggle for survival." The former influences evolution; the latter does not.

And in case you are still confused, you are talking about the "struggle for survival."


Competition causes evolution. The human cannibals after a few generations will be faster, bigger, stronger, and smarter than their prey. You obviously are not used to thinking about a species that consumes itself.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron