The Malthusians Are Back.

[W I S N E R !]

The Malthusians Are Back
Climate activists who worry that the world has too many people are joining an ugly tradition.

 

[Atif Khan]

To the Malthusians, consumers vary. From Scientific American, “A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil,” reports the Sierra Club’s Dave Tilford, adding that the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China.” (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/american-consumption-habits/)

 

[Jerry Adams]

Several excerpts:

“Scolding regular people for contributing to climate change is out of fashion. But scolding people for making new people is, apparently, totally fine. Many climate activists say the worst thing an individual can do, from an emissions perspective, is have kids.”

“But what about solutions to environmental decline that emphasize better growth instead of slower growth? Solutions such as modern energy infrastructure, high-productivity agriculture, and access to global markets?”

“The challenge that nations including Germany, South Korea, Japan, and even India and China are dealing with today is underpopulation, not overpopulation.”

“Given that the Malthusian dream—a peak in global population—is already in sight, one might think that single-minded efforts to further suppress population growth would wane.”

Okay, I agree a lot of awful, racist things have been said and done in the name of controlling population, but no matter how good we are at utilizing resources to support people, continuing population increase will eventually outstrip resources.

Global population is 8 billion and it appears will peak at 10.5 billion, but that’s just a projection.  It’s important we don’t lose focus on this.  But by doing things like supporting women’s education (that is effective) and not doing terrible things (like wagging our fingers at poor countries).

We also have to do “modern energy infrastructure, high-productivity agriculture, and access to global markets” and other things.

[Bill Budney]

Adjusting the balance isn’t “Malthusian”. Calling it that is an exaggeration that obscures honest discussion. It doesn’t help.

The world population quadrupled in the last century. It shouldn’t be a shock that we have troubles with pollution, economies, jobs, diseases, clean water, depletion of fishing, and feeding everyone. Re-adjusting that balance is just another way of doing LNT.

Peter Zeihan is fun to listen to, and I love his mountain backdrops, but his doom and gloom about economies collapsing is silly. He says that he “can do math”, but he seems to think that “half” is approximately “collapse” or “vanish” or “cease to exist”. I’m pretty sure that math doesn’t work that way.

Over time we will all re-adjust. People are pretty adaptable.

 

[Jerry Adams]

I was reading an article somewhere but now can’t find it or I’d put a link to it

They said that if your message is doom and gloom and there isn’t anything we can do about it, then people will just turn off.  Young people will become depressed and give up because the world will end before they’re adults…

If you want to generate action, you need an optimistic message and that there are things we can do.  It’s not a given that the world will end.  We are doing a lot to reduce CO2.  Even in Texas, they have so many wind turbines and solar panels that there are times when they produce all their electricity.  There are now multiple electric car manufacturers.  There are multiple battery technologies that are being developed…

We just need to keep pushing.  More wind turbines and solar panels.  Work on cheaper more available batteries.  More power lines to get the electricity from where there’s excess supply to where it’s needed…

Advocates of fixing climate change need to quit making ever more drastic doom articles.  It’s just making people more miserable and actually inhibiting progress.  Greta Thunburg – quit wagging your finger at us adults that have screwed everything up, soon enough it will be your turn to screw everything up.

Until we can go 100% renewable, we will continue to provide fossil fuels.  We will not take your car keys away from your clinched fist, but will provide an electric vehicle that you will find to be better and cheaper.  Sort of like does anyone buy a manual transmission anymore?  I much prefer an automatic.  Don’t say that we’re going to shut down all oil wells and pipelines because they produce xxx amount of CO2.

get off soap box now

[Monte Masterson]

Numbers do in fact matter though. Actually Malthus’s philosophy would still hold true today if not for advances in science and technology such as with fertilizers, pesticides, modern farm machinery, etc. They’ve kept major famines at a minimum over the past century or so. The big starvation events such as China’s “Great Leap Forward” (which killed tens of millions), Sudan and North Korea have all been avoidable.

Malthus preached abstinence as a means of population control. Of course the pill and abortion (for the most part) weren’t available back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Good luck selling the abstinence idea to humans however. Like with all primates Homo Sapiens is very promiscuous. Even with all the incessant warfare and disease humans have still managed to breed in huge numbers. And now modern medicine assures that far few people die these days, especially during childhood.

Scrooge best embodies the Malthusian approach in 35 seconds

[W I S N E R !]

Malthus preached abstinence as a means of population control.

Which should disqualify him as a serious thinker right off the bat…

[Mart]

Just a few thoughts and to further the conversation:

We just need to keep pushing. More wind turbines and solar panels.

Presently, renewables are unreliable and too expensive per KWH. And there is the environmental cost. Long-term, nuclear will be more reliable and cheaper but it takes a long time to bring on-line.

There are multiple battery technologies that are being developed…

Battery technology (and price and range) is what will prevent me from purchasing an electric vehicle. I won’t ever consider and EV as long as battery supply makes us dependent on China. Same thing for solar panels on my roof.

Until we can go 100% renewable, we will continue to provide fossil fuels.

This will not happen anytime soon. There are no electric ships and airplanes. And there won’t be for a long time. We will be dependent on the IC engine and fossil fuels far, far into the future. Human lives are made better through cheap energy (think food production). The economy depends on it.

[Dan]

I guess it’s also popular to demonize Malthus. Obviously, many proposed solutions to the problem of limited resources have been and are unfair and inequitable (to say the least), but I fail to see how the general idea that unlimited population growth can outstrip natural resources is “morally objectionable.” In and of itself, it’s a reasonable conjecture.

According to many knowledgeable projections, we are poised for a major jump in life expectancy over the next few decades. Call it what you like, but major population growth and an aging population is likely to create some problems.

As Jerry mentioned, enhancing girls’ education around the world is believed to be an important part of equitable population control. What is less often mentioned is the role that some major organized religions play in perpetuating the status quo. I realize it’s a sensitive topic.

[Bruce Tolley]

This article while interesting is behind a paywall despite the 1 week free teaser.

@ Monte “The big starvation events such as China’s “Great Leap Forward” (which killed tens of millions), Sudan and North Korea have all been avoidable.” Yes, agreed but the causes of all three events were mostly political, not population pressures.

 

[Jerry Adams]

sometimes you can read The Atlantic articles in an incognito window. I think my excerpts give a pretty good idea of what the article is about.  But reading the whole article is interesting.

good points Mart.  I think we’ll be able to replace fossil fuels sooner than you think, but that question isn’t too important to answer now.  Let’s just transition as soon as possible, and until then, make sure we have sufficient fossil fuels.  Greta will chastise me for saying this, but if we say we’re doing it faster than possible, it will turn off voters, which will result in political blowback, and then it will take longer.

[W I S N E R !]

Isn’t there a serious problem with failing to differentiate between population reduction as a policy (i.e. China’s 1980 “one child” policy) versus population reduction as an organic byproduct of other net positive humanitarian actions (i.e. education or economic development)? In the former there is a tendency to see humans as a drag upon the world, but in the latter we might just see our fellow humans as worthy of uplifting.

I believe narratives matter. I fail to see how characterizing humans as fleshy locust is part of a rallying cry that will get us anywhere.

[HkNewman]

Malthusians

A centuries old argument started over limited agriculture, but the counterargument has been technology which has been proven since the late 20th century going into the 21st.  Now that science has invented lab grown meat and nuclear power is getting a second kick look, shouldn’t be a problem as long as an operator doesn’t pull a “Homer Simpson”.  Then there’s always AI to let humans do more important things .. like online sports betting and watching TikTok.

10.5B

Read this is the number most demographers agree on and considering one of the recent most authoritarian modern govts (who shall remain unnamed) couldn’t affect their birth rate either way, not sure it’s even worth arguing.

Think where backpackers and other recreationalists (mountain biking is big) get involved is when development takes over wildlands.  Seems yards for most are getting smaller though, unless a serious gardener or getting into small time agriculture.  For anyone else, a big yard just distracts from the important things in life .. like surfing the internet (see online gambling and TikTok comment above).

So science and putting more development vertical seem the solution.  Think I’ll have that well deserved IPA for working humanities problems out in 10 minutes.

[W I S N E R !]

Well said Hk.

I’m not sure I care much for the futurist/technophile outlook, but it might be the only potential solution that doesn’t necessitate an authoritarian dystopia that devalues humanity. Because we are doing all of this for the sake of humanity, right? If it’s solely for the sake of the plants and animals, we should all just exit now…

[HkNewman]

the sake of the plants and animals

When it comes to wild plants and animals, that’s where the interests of outdoor recreation users and scientists (namely biology-ecology  types) come into agreement.  While there’s certainly natural beauty to enjoy, all these organisms are also vessels for .. chromosomes.   Larger animals tend to need more physical area to mate while avoiding “inbreeding” and keeping whole ecosystem’s healthy. Unfortunately a bunch of this type work was defunded years ago (unless a “game” animal), so it’s likely up to planners, architects, etc.. Whatever works so the next generation can have a healthy ecosphere.

Then there’s throwing changing average temperatures, etc.. on that bonfire when talking wild and even domesticated species .. but that goes beyond the discussion (though I have read people are seriously thinking about more nuclear on that front).

[Tom K]

We have the capabilities necessary to solve the problems that result from climate change, but I think we are in a race against time.  Feedback loops have already been set in motion that may overwhelm our best efforts in the very near future.  The three that most concern me are accelerating methane generation as the permafrost melts;  the accelerating loss of the polar ice caps, with several catastrophic results;  ocean warming/acidification, which threatens the phytoplankton that produce over 40% of the atmospheric oxygen all aerobic organisms depend on for survival.  The consensus opinion of the majority of scientists studying the relevant issues is that there is little, if any, time to lose, if we are to avert the worst outcomes, and yet the major nations of the world are at each others’ throats when they should be acting in concert to deal with the issue that affects not only humans, but the majority of life on Earth.   I grow increasingly pessimistic with every passing day.

[Monte Masterson]

Critics of Malthus have often labeled his ideas as “misanthropic” but the fact that he was a white Briton from the colonial era makes him a fashionable target these days. Actually England (and Europe) saw the negative effects of overpopulation centuries ago. The Black Death killed 1/3 to 1/2 of Europe’s population and the 30 Years War was almost as devastating. Yet humans have shown themselves to be very resilient.

Africa’s large animal numbers are estimated to be only 20% (or less) of what they were a century ago and most of that has to do with explosive population growth. Saying overpopulation isn’t a real threat to the environment is a bit naive in my opinion. It’s true that no one has a bigger carbon footprint and produces more solid waste (per capita) than an American, however overpopulation is undoubtably a factor in environmental degradation. Believe it or not all of the world’s ills aren’t exclusively caused by those of European descent.

I’m personally pulling for all the non-human animal species, many of which are going extinct at a staggering rate. The Humanist idea that “man is the measure of all things”….. humbug!

[Matthew / BPL]

Derail alert! Sorry.

So science and putting more development vertical seem the solution.

🙋‍♂️Arcosanti alumni here. Soleri’s work can be viewed as a critique of the two-dimensional city, best typified by Phoenix and Los Angeles. Dense mixed-use vertical buildings make so much sense. Passive solar architecture and a reliance on trains for medium to long-distance travel would be huge as well, preserving more of the natural environment while having payoffs by bringing multiple generations of families into closer proximity to each other.

More on the Miniaturization Duration Complexity Paradigm

Let me acknowledge that Soleri is a problematic person and that Arcosanti is a deeply flawed project that has failed to progress at its intended pace.

tl;dr: Vertical Good.

[Jerry Adams]

I’ve never heard of him, interesting

[edit by MK]

At least it seems like there is a societal change that tolerates this less.

“He was in his 50s and becoming more confident in his own ideas, and less tolerant of dissent, says Daniela. “If there was ever a significant challenge, that person would have to leave.””

I question the idea that the best way to have a utopian society is to have a genius leader that everyone worships.  For one thing, ideas from a diverse group will be better in the long run.  Another thing, a too powerful leader will often go in a bad direction, unchecked by anyone else.

Yeah, I agree that a sprawling suburbia doesn’t allow for the 10.5 billion people we’ll have to accommodate and leave room for the rest of the plants and animals.  Why don’t we grow plants on the roofs of buildings?  – help feed us, make the city more habitable,…

[Jerry Adams]

I was thinking, uh oh, how long can this thread go before Matthew shuts it down : )

[Jeff McWilliams]

Presently, renewables are unreliable and too expensive per KWH. And there is the environmental cost. Long-term, nuclear will be more reliable and cheaper but it takes a long time to bring on-line.

Here are two separate charts disproving the assertion that renewables are more expensive than fossil fuel for energy production.

 

 

[W I S N E R !]

Do people think it’s realistic to expect an international movement to sign on to environmental policies that don’t place humanism/human prosperity at their core? I’m not suggesting a McMansion and a tasty slab of tuna belly for everyone, but we can’t lose sight of addressing human needs in the process. I’m really failing to see how we can continue without first addressing food, clothing, shelter, energy…Human insecurity simply does not bode well for our non-human neighbors. Seems to me that a pervasive sense of misanthropy will likely only push us further into destructive hedonism. “We need fewer humans” is simply not an acceptable policy point, nor one that’s going to sell.

[Jeff McWilliams]

Battery technology (and price and range) is what will prevent me from purchasing an electric vehicle. I won’t ever consider and EV as long as battery supply makes us dependent on China. Same thing for solar panels on my roof.

I find it weird that batteries and photovoltaic solar panels are the two things coming from China for which one would draw the line and refuse to purchase them.

What percentage of clothing in one’s closet is made in the USA?  What about TVs, PCs, smartphones, kitchen appliances, or light bulbs?

Don’t get me wrong.  I’d love to see us building more batteries and solar panels in the US.  Ford for instance, is making a $3.5billion investment in “BlueOval Battery Park” here in Michigan to produce Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries for their next-gen EVs.

[Mart]

What percentage of clothing in one’s closet is made in the USA? What about TVs, PCs, smartphones, kitchen appliances, or light bulbs?

I agree, but change needs to start in this regard. I try, whenever possible, to avoid supporting China with my dollars. And yes, I acknowledge this is not always possible.

But, in regards to EVs, the state of the art is just not there for me, yet. I’m not convinced that they are any better, environmentally, when considering a vehicle’s entire life cycle: from manufacture to scrapping. This will change, over time. But, until then, my family and I will make other choices.

[Jerry Adams]

“Do people think it’s realistic to expect an international movement to sign on to environmental policies that don’t place humanism/human prosperity at their core?”

Yeah!

If the message is we can save the planet and we’ll actually like the solutions better, that has a chance of actually being democratically implemented.

If the message is we have to be miserable to save the planet, it won’t be popular so it won’t be democratically implemented.  And for environmentalists that are frustrated with this reality, then trying to shame people into action is counter productive.  If you’re just doing to make yourself feel good, that’s just ego.

[Author]

Posts