Re: Self Destruction

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:39:00 -0700, "John M."
<john_howard_morgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 26, 10:47 pm, amacmil...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:36:02 +0100, Robert Seago



<rjse...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <kkjfa3587m26112gi08gsl8uk1gmr11...@xxxxxxx>,
<amacmil...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

And Thomas Malthus has not yet proved right either.

He has if you look at historical and ongoing examples.

Read a bit more about him before you start flinging names about.

Well here is a view on it which is vindicated by history :

In forming his dark forecast Malthus failed to take several factors into
consideration. The industrial revolution transformed the very nature of
Western society, so that his principles, which assume that agriculture
forms the center of the economy, lost their validity by mid-nineteenth
century. Focusing exclusively on the birth rates of economically thriving
communities, he failed to consider that part of his projected "population
explosion" would come from a reduction in death rates. This oversight
throws Malthus's theories into disarray. An increase in the elderly
population would not have significant repercussions in the labor market.
Essentially, wages would not fall to the extent that Malthus originally
predicted. In an era where children entered the work force at an early
age, an increase in birth rates would have more profound implications than
a decrease in deaths.

A more forgivable mistake by Malthus involves his failure to anticipate
the growth of technology. The advancements made in agricultural science
allowed farmers to make greater use of their lands. The development of
effective contraception also made "restraint" a non-issue in terms of
checking population growth. Because of these scientific breakthroughs the
theories of Malthus have had little relevance in regards to Western
society. Many underdeveloped nations, however, never adopted improved
farming techniques or new methods of contraception. The results of this
failure have mirrored Malthusian predictions to a startling degree.
Overpopulation, famine, pestilence and war continue to ravage the third
world. These events constitute an unhappy vindication of many of
Malthusian doctrine.

(http://www.victorianweb.org/economics/malthus.html)

I think TM's are absolutely correct, if for the wrong reasons.



Do you know just how much higher the UK population has got since the
predictions of Malthus?

I don't, but I would guess it's increased substantially.



This industrial revolution is also transforming the rest of the world bit
by bit, and it is the very improvements in the world which are increasing
people's life expectancy, and consumption.

Consumption is the problem.



I am old enough in the fifties to remember the starvation in China and
India.

So am I.

We, and I talk of the human family have technolgies which feed us,
progressively improve our health and richness of life.

Which means more consumption and don't kid yourself that the planet
will be disease free. The anti-biotic time bomb could burst at any
time with millions dying of some plague or another. TB was considered
beaten but it's now back with a vengeance.



You think this dooms the planet, because of the malthusian doctrine, but
it does not.

There's no question about it. The planet itself might survive but
many species including humans could become extinct.

When I was a lad I looked at the pollution of rivers, and
assumed that they and everything would only get worse, but it hasn't
because enough people saw that it was tackled. I have seen rivers and air
cleaned up, in this country which some list as the third most populous in
the world. (To be fair I think it is SE England rather than the UK)
We have technologies underway which will ultimately enable us to generate
electricity in cells on our roof. Things don't stand still.

You're looking at a very small picture

There is however a possibility that the civilisation of this age will
collapse, though as I said the human race will survive.

One only needs to look at Tewkesbury today to see how close
civilisation is to collapse. There's not the margin for survival you
think there is.

This outcome will
happen, if people spend their energy on fighting, illogical philosophies
or sheer complacency.

China, a nuclear power, is losing productivity of 26m hectares of
agricultural land out of a total of 121m hectares through lack of
water. They have a shortfall of 30bn cubic metres of water every
year. What will happen when they can no longer feed their people?

Wars over scarce resources and fertile land will destroy the human
race, if climate change doesn't get us first.

If you think otherwise you are too naive for words.

There is no need to erect any futuristic scenarios. Basic mammalian
ecology has shown over and over again that populations freed from
natural checks - such as parasites, diseases and predators - increase
to a point where range depletion causes the numbers to suddenly
collapse. Starvation and internicine strife are the commonest agents,
as you have proposed for humanity in the near future.

What Robert thinks is that because humans have a resource available to
them that other mammals haven't i.e. a perception of the future, we
will escape this fate. I hope he's right.



Am I right in thinking you think he's not?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.

Loading