Not to derail, but I agree.
4 Likes
Also, the right will try to get into nearly any party. Happened somewhat with the German greens, then definitely with the German Pirate Party, and ultimately in the German AfD, which already started as a nationalistic platform and is now basically fully in control of the extreme right.
1 Like
Certainly not in the immediate or near future – the countries with large population growth generally aren’t the ones that strip resources on a global level. It’s the other way around: It’s mostly the highly industrialized countries which suck out local resources, be it labor, wood, plants, or minerals.
However, a population reduction is inevitable, not by design but because wars will happen. Won’t help stopping climate change or promote sustainability, of course.
Wars in the modern world only affect local population. If you look at the global growth trend over the past 150 years, neither WWI or WWII, or any war even really slowed down global population trends.
4 Likes
Malthus was pretty much tossed into the dustbin of theories people have to take seriously with the Green Revolution.
Which proved that countries with endemic famines such as India and China can turn around and not only feed their people but become economic powers in their own right. Present day China is the refutation of Malthus.
5 Likes
Because there were major breakthroughs in agriculture technology over the last generation which reduced or eliminated regular endemic famine in certain parts of the world.
2 Likes
And any meager environmental gains from that reduced population are DRAMATICALLY offset by the carbon footprint of the war.
8 Likes
Major breakthroughs which are mostly based on the availability of cheap oil, deforestation, and cranking up the carbon dioxide share bz burning coal in spades. Plus harvesting biomatter from the ecosystem at unsustainable rates.
I can but assume that you do not consider climate change to be real or a problem.
1 Like
Also artificial fertilizers, genetic modification and mechanization 
On the upside one of the best ways of putting slowing population growth, is one of the cheapest. Increasing education and employment opportunities for women.
8 Likes
Oh, absolutely. Killing people is out of the question. Also pointless, especially as while
the population still grows, the rate is getting down.
And there is still hope that there advances
in the fields you mentioned will alleviate some problems. Artificial meat could have a huge impact.
But Malthus general idea is still valid and I believe that we are seeing the problem right now on this earth. Resources are definitely finite - even without humans life itself would use them up.
I’m actually not concerned about earth itself. We can certainly mess up the atmosphere and create a hot earth that’s so hostile to human life that we may die out entirely. But if that happens, we won’t dump any more stuff into the atmosphere and plants will reclaim their territories and ultimately the carbon dioxide.
1 Like
Malthus was a product of his time.
Nascent-industrial, before contraception was available to the masses, and pre-mass education. Where he went wrong was predicting conditions would be worldwide.
All developed nations have gone through natural population decline thanks to education and increased participation of women in society. Economic modernity creates its own brakes on the population. Which is why immigration from the developing world is such a hot topic in countries that didn’t traditionally have immigration.
We see the “Malthusian” pressures on developing societies. Ones where the majority population is unfree, uneducated and the economy is subsistence agriculture based.
3 Likes
The problem is that Malthus argued the basis of population mechanics from the point of view of an aristocrat. He didn’t see the people as self-improving and therefore concluded only the highest class of people should be allowed to live and giving any improvement to the living conditions of the lower classes was a prescription for disaster for him. Therefore, his work as a whole is something to be discarded as there’s better theorists on population mechanics and ecology that don’t come with all the baggage of aristocracy and eugenics.
13 Likes
I really cannot understand why the neo-malthusians don’t just shut up and support this on a worldwide scale (it does what they want, and they will get far less objection to their ideas) and instead insist on their dogwhistling about how there are too many people (who just happen to mostly be poor and brown).
10 Likes
Cause Neo-Malthusians are crypto-monarchists and/or fascists (is there really a difference?)? Just my guess to be honest.
8 Likes
You mean that actual population reduction might not be their real goal?!
Fry shocked gif
4 Likes
Granted. As I said, killing people is out of the question, pointless (apart from unethical), and unneeded, as population growth slows even at a far less luxurious lifestyle than most of the west enjoys now. As long as all have a reasonable chance to participate, especially women, and to can grow old securely and safe even if they don’t pop out children. (Okay, i didn’t say that before)
But I consider it a bit dangerous to jump into these discussion with “Malthus was wrong”. You won’t teach the racists anyway, ecological concern is just an excuse for them. While in fact the right is usually not willing to actually do something about ecological problems. You can see it splendidly right now with the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
But a lot of people on the fence will take this as “all is well, we don’t have to do anything, science will find a way”.
1 Like
7 Likes
At risk of bringing the thread back to the topic, a post in a series I regularly enjoy, bullet point 7 talks to this point:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/04/erik-visits-american-grave-part-226
Yes, I’m just posting a link to drive people to read something I’ve enjoyed reading.
2 Likes
she couldn’t stand the fucker and he has free will. whoever tries to make death responsible is doing the character a disservice much in the same way that Thanos in the Cinematic universe can now have fans going “well, he wasn’t wrong though”
Well, we was wrong, but at least he was fair, killing randomly (except himself, of course) instead of having a racist agenda.
