Malthusianism has been falsified for decades, but never fear, Bill Nye the Pseudoscience Guy is here

[Ringtone]

Foundation for Economic Foundation
Thanos, Like Malthus, Is Wrong about Population Control (Reprinted from RealClearPolitics)
Tim Hains, Saturday, August 18, 2018

Thanos is just the latest in a long line of population growth alarmists, and he's just as wrong as they were.

This video from the Foundation For Economic Education discusses why advocates of population control keep wrongly predicting doom, from 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus to the Stanford professors who wrongly predicted "The Population Bomb" in the 1960s. . . .

Read More

 

[Pete7469]

How does someone who is an average mechanical engineer, but one that doesn't even practice that craft, he's just a asswipe who pretends to be a Disney Scientist, get any credibility at all?

Like Ted Danson 40 years ago standing in front of some cameras telling us we only have 10 years left to save the planet. Why did anyone listen to him either?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I can still remember listening to Paul Erlich give a talk in California in 1971.

 

[ReinyDays]

Human population quadrupled over the past 100 years ... why do you think it can quadruple again over the next 100 years? ... 30 billion souls? ...

 

[Hollie]

I'm not convinced that youtube videos are a rigorous venue for science matters.

If the OP can link to something on Oprah, that would be a different matter.

 

[ReinyDays]

If the OP can link to something on Oprah, that would be a different matter.

No ... it was over on Maury ...

 

[Ringtone]

Human population quadrupled over the past 100 years ... why do you think it can quadruple again over the next 100 years? ... 30 billion souls? ...

I think you may want to rewrite your post for the sake of clarity. In any event, population is not the real problem. I kept things simple for those who wrongly think it is; such are of the zero-sum-game mentality. Perhaps you didn't read the article below the video. These are the same folks, the leftist fools of centralized government, who think that greater rates of taxation, for example, axiomatically equal greater revenue.

The real problem for some nations is corrupt, inefficient and oppressive governance that incessantly undermines the creation of wealth and resource distribution that may be had via the entrepreneurial dynamics of private property, free markets, and the scientific and technological innovations thereof. Indeed, when efficiently managed via these inherently abiding dynamics, population growth is an indispensable resource of cranial and labor power.

Pakistan is a perfect case study regarding the obtusely shortsighted predictions of Malthusianism and the devastatingly destructive outcomes of its application in the real world: Malthus: a false prophet.

Also see: Overpopulation: Where Malthus Went Wrong, 7 Billion Reasons Malthus Was Wrong, Synopsis: What’s Wrong with the Malthusian Argument?

 

[ReinyDays]

I think you may want to rewrite your post for the sake of clarity. In any event, population is not the real problem. I kept things simple for those who wrongly think it is; such are of the zero-sum-game mentality. Perhaps you didn't read the article below the video. These are the same folks, the leftist fools of centralized government, who think that greater rates of taxation, for example, axiomatically equal greater revenue.

The real problem for some nations is corrupt, inefficient and oppressive governance that incessantly undermines the creation of wealth and resource distribution that may be had via the entrepreneurial dynamics of private property, free markets, and the scientific and technological innovations thereof. Indeed, when efficiently managed via these inherently abiding dynamics, population growth is an indispensable resource of cranial and labor power.

Pakistan is a perfect case study regarding the obtusely shortsighted predictions of Malthusianism and the devastatingly destructive outcomes of its application in the real world: Malthus: a false prophet.

Also see: Overpopulation: Where Malthus Went Wrong, 7 Billion Reasons Malthus Was Wrong, Synopsis: What’s Wrong with the Malthusian Argument?

No, my post is clear enough ... and your answer is 30 billion is easy, I guess ... maybe you think there's enough copper wire available to get all these people connected to electricity ... maybe ...

Seems like you're only targeting a couple of individuals ... at the expense of an expansive and well studied field of biology ... much has been learned in the past 250 years, hell, much has been learned over the past 50 years ... why are you not addressing theories being used today? ... are they too robust and defy criticism? ...

It's been well established that human population growth is occurring in a non-standard way ... for decades we've known this ... in nature, more resources almost always means high fertility rates; yet among humans we see the exact opposite, in Western Europe and Anglo-America with their fossil fuel intensive economies, fertility rates have crashed to below replacement ... 5 minutes of reading on Wikipedia will bear this fact out ... 250 years ago we didn't even have the basic steam engine ...

My take is that through almost all human history ... an individual's "retirement plan" consisted of having as many children as possible in the hopes that enough will survive into adulthood to support the parents when they're too old to work themselves ... it's only been in the past 100 years we come to have governments stable enough to collect taxes and save the money to pay back out to the workers once they're too old to work ... many parents have enough retirement savings they never have to lean on their children for support ... they can have less children ... and save even more money ... my own mother was frugal and wise and wound up with more income after she retired ... but only 3 billion of us enjoy such a benefit ... the other 5 billion have to breed as much as possible, because they'll see 5 or 10 different governments come and go raping the treasuries and pension plans ...

 

[Ringtone]

No, my post is clear enough ... and your answer is 30 billion is easy, I guess ... maybe you think there's enough copper wire available to get all these people connected to electricity ... maybe ...

Neither I nor anything in the OP said anything about the world population quadrupling over the next 100 years in the first place, and no one of repute that I know of believes it will quadruple again over the next 100 years in the second. So what in the world are you going on about?

Seems like you're only targeting a couple of individuals ... at the expense of an expansive and well studied field of biology ... much has been learned in the past 250 years, hell, much has been learned over the past 50 years ... why are you not addressing theories being used today? ... are they too robust and defy criticism? ...

Huh? You're obviously not reading or thinking about the contents of my posts, nor are you reading and thinking about the articles cited.

 

[alang1216]

Foundation for Economic Foundation
Thanos, Like Malthus, Is Wrong about Population Control (Reprinted from RealClearPolitics)
Tim Hains, Saturday, August 18, 2018

Thanos is just the latest in a long line of population growth alarmists, and he's just as wrong as they were.

This video from the Foundation For Economic Education discusses why advocates of population control keep wrongly predicting doom, from 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus to the Stanford professors who wrongly predicted "The Population Bomb" in the 1960s. . . .

Read More

In a closed system, Malthus is correct. Happily we don't live in a closed system. The limits on man are his ability to produce energy for productive uses. So long as we can go on as we have been we can sustain virtually unlimited growth. Every breakthrough in energy use (domesticating animals, flowing water, coal, oil, nuclear) has opened up new possibilities. I don't see, assuming we don't self-destruct, that trend need end.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Huh? You're (reinydays) obviously not reading or thinking about the contents of my posts, nor are you reading and thinking about the articles cited.

You're wasting your time and ours, Friend. Lefties like him only subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.

Use your Ignore List. Spare us, and yourself.

 

[ReinyDays]

Huh? You're (reinydays) obviously not reading or thinking about the contents of my posts, nor are you reading and thinking about the articles cited.

You're wasting your time and ours, Friend. Lefties like him only subtract from the sum total of human knowledge.

Use your Ignore List. Spare us, and yourself.

Coward ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Neither I nor anything in the OP said anything about the world population quadrupling over the next 100 years in the first place, and no one of repute that I know of believes it will quadruple again over the next 100 years in the second. So what in the world are you going on about?

Thus my question ... what do you think world population will be in a 100 years ... and do you think that will be sustainable? ...

Huh? You're obviously not reading or thinking about the contents of my posts, nor are you reading and thinking about the articles cited.

I read the articles ... but why did you post them in a discussion board if you won't tolerate discussion? ... I don't generally seek the opinion of aeronautical engineers in matters related to population dynamics ... nor would I consider information published 50 years ago to be current ...

 

[fncceo]

Like Ted Danson 40 years ago standing in front of some cameras

I remember watching Ted Danson in front of the cameras ... but I have to admit ... I wasn't listening to what he was saying.