Jump to content


Photo

are we heading towards a Malthusian Catastrophe?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 16 October 2007 - 10:03 PM

just found an article on Wikipedia about the theory of the Malthusian catastrophe.

"I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, That food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations.
...
Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio."




[...]
Pimentel and Nielsen, working independently, found that the human population has passed the numerical point where all can live in comfort, and that we have entered a stage where many of the world's citizens and future generations are trapped in misery.[3] There is evidence that a catastrophe is underway as of at least the 1990s; for example, by the year 2000, children in developing countries were dying at the rate of approximately 11,000,000 per annum from strictly preventable diseases.[4][5] This data suggests that by the standard of misery, the catastrophe is underway. The term 'misery' can generally be construed as: high infant mortality, low standards of sanitation, malnutrition, inadequate drinking water, new and widespread diseases (e.g. HIV), war, political unrest.

[...]

A 2004 study by a group of prominent economists and ecologists, including Kenneth Arrow and Paul Ehrlich[13] suggests that the central concerns regarding sustainability have shifted from population growth to the consumption/savings ratio, due to shifts in population growth rates since the 1970s. Empirical estimates show that public policy (taxes or the establishment of more complete property rights) can promote more efficient consumption and investment that are sustainable in an ecological sense; that is, given the current (relatively low) population growth rate, the Malthusian catastrophe can be avoided by either a shift in consumer preferences or public policy that induces a similar shift.



This topic has interested me for a while, because i've been thinking about how we humans behave and expand. Al Gore might have won the Nobel Peace prize for awakening the world on the global climate troubles, but in my opinion thats just a small part of the picture. also, food is not only a part of the human equation these days, but energy aswell.

this is in my opinion a topic on the very foundations of global political stability, and it is actually getting close to that point that we have to start worrying about the fundations of our reality. lack of food is tragic for those at the bottom, lack of oil is tragic for those at the top. When people start uusing corn-fields to create biofuel even when there is lack of food for alot of people in the world, you know whats got priority.

we are actually living in a world where we easily sacrifice the poor for the welfare of the rich, even though the definition of rich is today more evenly distributed among the human population, its probably not fun for the 9/10 who are not a part of that group. and i find it highly unlikely that the enviromentalists of the world will be able to turn our materialistic and consumeristic ways of life around before we hit the wall.

today, the world is still a basket of fruits and vegetables, and those with power have very little problems getting enough for what they need. but we still fight because what we need is not what we want. imagine what will happen the day that people truly realize that we are no longer in the "I want this" situation, but in the "i NEED this" situation.

there will be fighting. i don't think i really want to go into the details because it is pretty much our inaction at present time that would cause the horrors of such a situation.

i had more in mind, but i believe this should cover the basics for now.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#2 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 16 October 2007 - 10:10 PM

http://education.yah...pare/pg/1a.html

A population growth chart to help the article. I don't know much about his topic so I'll be interested to see what becomes of it.

#3 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 20 October 2007 - 10:49 PM

going to be a bit politically incorrect myself for a change and do a disturbing thought experiment.


consider the worlds dwindling resources, we are bound to come into conflict in the future. the cause of this is lack of resources, and theres no way for us to increase the amount of resources availible for us at the moment, so we got to change the other variable to get anywhere, and that variable is the human population.

what i'm saying is a logical conclusion for the people in charge of such warfare: get rid of as many humans of the side that we're not on, while making sure that as many of us get out of it alive. massive intergenocide to be presise. kill off those who are not on "our" side. (philosophically speaking this is a interesting situation, its pretty close to the nazi holocaust/ideology, but then again i would say its more indiscriminate. its a question of whose side you are on, not what kind of nose you got or if your family has a history of being into making money.)


the three things that stops us from doing this at the moment are the ABC's. if it wasnt for those we would easily have seen this happen a long time ago. the question is, would we personally have accepted such a dark faith for a part of humanity? this is a very hard moral question in my opinion. would you personally allow a large part of the human population to die to ensure stability for the remaining part of the human population?

personally i can barely consider answering that question, it makes my heart ache. i am bloody glad i have no aspiration of becoming a prime-minister/president. the problem is that with bad enough consequenses, everyone would accept this, but if it was just to uphold the quality of life that we see today?? thats the question. would it be evil of us to sacrifice the poor/others of the world for our own well-being? Definately, but would we hesitate to do so? thats the question...

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#4 Mathijs

Mathijs

    Post-modern Shaman

  • Network Leaders
  • 13,756 posts
  • Projects:Age of the Ring
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Leader

Posted 20 October 2007 - 10:55 PM

In the end, we would not hesitate to do so. It's in our very nature to ensure survival for new generations and ourselves.

No fuel left for the pilgrims


#5 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 20 October 2007 - 11:07 PM

yes, but would how desperate would we have to become before we go there. would we start a global holocaust for our access to chocolate? to oil? to food? thats a very cropped down list of things which would be spread pretty far over a line, but it makes the point. how far would our moderate discomforts go before we say "no more, do something!".

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#6 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 27 October 2007 - 11:58 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...vs-Biofuel.html

A U.N. expert on Friday called the growing practice of converting food crops into biofuel ''a crime against humanity,'' saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry.


Jean Ziegler, who has been the United Nations' independent expert on the right to food since the position was established in 2000, called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to halt what he called a growing ''catastrophe'' for the poor.


here's what i'm talking about in a nutshell. when we start losing access to easily transportable energy, people start sacrificing items that we on the top won't have trouble getting access to. effect: people die.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#7 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 28 October 2007 - 12:48 PM

Remember the NY Times is very far left. In other words, in the US farmers are subsidized, paid not to grow food. Because we can grow so much of it that it would drive down the cost so much farmers couldn't make a living.

So this contridicts any shortage on food. Now I don't totally understand how this works and maybe it's alot differant in other nations I'm sure. No one is starving in the US because of it. Food costs have not gone up. Alot of corn still sits and rots in grain elevators. Our food exports have not changed. We simple free up more land by converting subsidies.

#8 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 28 October 2007 - 05:17 PM

well once people can make more money on making fuel than food its obvious that it has to affect someone. and if a UN spokesperson says something i wouldnt consider that automatically leftist.

the main problem with making fuel instead of food is that it will make the fields we use to create food compete against fuel. this will in the end cause a rise in prices for food, which is something which causes trouble for the poor. i agree that some old grain-storages in the states which won't be flown into Zanzibar because the flight costs too much isnt a big problem. but once all the farmers around the world start thinking "ey we can make more money on fuel than food, and food we can create for ourselves because we own land", you can imagine that the food-levels will drop.

going to be interesting to see what happens. ultimately it would be a way to balance the human population, the moral dilemma is that its only the poor that will die.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#9 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 28 October 2007 - 06:47 PM

well once people can make more money on making fuel than food its obvious that it has to affect someone. and if a UN spokesperson says something i wouldnt consider that automatically leftist.

the main problem with making fuel instead of food is that it will make the fields we use to create food compete against fuel. this will in the end cause a rise in prices for food, which is something which causes trouble for the poor. i agree that some old grain-storages in the states which won't be flown into Zanzibar because the flight costs too much isnt a big problem. but once all the farmers around the world start thinking "ey we can make more money on fuel than food, and food we can create for ourselves because we own land", you can imagine that the food-levels will drop.

going to be interesting to see what happens. ultimately it would be a way to balance the human population, the moral dilemma is that its only the poor that will die.

If a UN spokesperson said it's true doesn't mean it is. Angolina Jolie is a UN spokes person. You have to watch out for this, because they have no name. But who are "they?" Simply UN spokes person. There are alot of them. Bono, and whomever they designate with such a title who are un-named.

Why not name those UN spokes people so I may research them? See in leftie magazine or ezines, they simply imply "an important person" known as a "UN spoke person"

That is why I cannot counter, because they hide important "people" as unamed in media. Give me thier names and I'll tell you their lives via google.

the main problem with making fuel instead of food is that it will make the fields we use to create food compete against fuel. this will in the end cause a rise in prices for food,

Who are "WE." do you grow food? And where is this currently happening, Don't be fooled by the media, they do "make stuff up"

but once all the farmers around the world start thinking "ey we can make more money on fuel than food, and food we can create for ourselves because we own land", you can imagine that the food-levels will drop.

You cannot show me one example of that. You're playing "What if...?" Not a reasonable argument.

If food was scarce, we'd know about it with the commercials of dieing children. I see no commercials because we feed the world. We are capable of making more food than we consume, alot of the issues is distributing it wisely. And not send aid to the people when we end up feeding rebels or government forces that syphon the food and funds.

#10 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 28 October 2007 - 07:30 PM

i mentioned his name in the quote and in the article you would also find it. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Jean_Ziegler

secondly, you could say that i grow food, i come from a farm and i would say that we are also heavily subsidized because of our economy. not really got any plans on taking it over as of yet, right now we got a latvian who runs it 100% of the time while my father makes(ie. does all the paperwork, buys parts, hires people to build. administrator more or less) powerplants. i am hoping that my younger brother will grow up to take care of the family business, but alot can change the next 20 years. farmers might become kings again as they were back in the old days.


You cannot show me one example of that. You're playing "What if...?" Not a reasonable argument.


gonna find a more stable link, bbc, not as directly oriented against what he said in the other article but it brings up some of the points. never mind, found one on the topic at bbc. here's one from LiveScience, dunno if that is leftist or rightist but i bet its atheistic and "intellectual".

Ziegler called their motives legitimate[farmers going over to making ethanol], but said that ''the effect of transforming hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of maize, of wheat, of beans, of palm oil, into agricultural fuel is absolutely catastrophic for the hungry people.''




The world price of wheat doubled in one year and the price of corn quadrupled, leaving poor countries, especially in Africa, unable to pay for the imported food needed to feed their people, he said. And poor people in those countries are unable to pay the soaring prices for the food that does come in, he added.

.


think that is a nice example, prices soaring usually is a sign of trouble for those who barely can afford a pound of maize per day.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#11 Solinx

Solinx

    .

  • Undead
  • 3,101 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Projects:Real Life
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Retired Leader / Manager

Posted 28 October 2007 - 08:01 PM

Remember the NY Times is very far left. In other words, in the US farmers are subsidized, paid not to grow food. Because we can grow so much of it that it would drive down the cost so much farmers couldn't make a living.

So this contridicts any shortage on food. Now I don't totally understand how this works and maybe it's alot differant in other nations I'm sure. No one is starving in the US because of it. Food costs have not gone up. Alot of corn still sits and rots in grain elevators. Our food exports have not changed. We simple free up more land by converting subsidies.

I would expect the food shortage not to be in the US, but in poorer countries, where people who just managed to go by would be confronted with rising prices and as a result would have to make do with too little food to stay alive.

If a UN spokesperson said it's true doesn't mean it is.

Neither does it automatically mean it is an outright lie. I have little doubt they dramaticed it tho, either the spokesman or media. Anyway, whether such a statement is true or false doesn't depend on who says it. Which means it should be possible to either prove or disprove it without knowing who said it.

the main problem with making fuel instead of food is that it will make the fields we use to create food compete against fuel. this will in the end cause a rise in prices for food,

Who are "WE." do you grow food? And where is this currently happening, Don't be fooled by the media, they do "make stuff up"

"We" is used to indicate humanity in general I think... (edit: Alright, I was wrong here :rolleyes:) Anyway, yes, wherever (almost) all land is needed to produce sufficient food at a price which also poor people can pay, turning fields for food production into fields for fuel production can mean a rise in food cost. Unless there is some compensation, like more food production in other areas, etc, people will find themselves unable to buy (enough) food.

In the western world this is less of a concern, since we produce more than we consume.
Besides that, I lost the document when my harddisk died, but last year I had a report from 2001/2002 which stated that producing bio-fuel on fields usuable for food production is not profitable in the EU, unless they get compensation from the government. Their proposal was the removal of tax on the fuel... like that would ever get accepted. :p

but once all the farmers around the world start thinking "ey we can make more money on fuel than food, and food we can create for ourselves because we own land", you can imagine that the food-levels will drop.

It would be really be amazing if all farmers around the world would decide to do this at the same time. If they not all convert at the same time, it will simply mean that a new balance will be formed. After all, once the demand for food rises, due to decreased production, that price will increase too, making it more profitable again to use the fields for food.

The balance would depend on the need of food and the need for bio-fuel, which depends almost entirely on the price of the available alternatives. Hardly anyone is willing to change fuel type if it doesn't benefit them financially, or at least doesn't cost them extra. I don't know if this can be applied in the US, since prices differ a lot compared with the EU. Although it would surprise me if the biofuel could be produced cheap enough to be really competitive there.

As a result, a growing demand in food can mean the downfall of bio-fuel components build on fields usuable for food production.

If food was scarce, we'd know about it with the commercials of dieing children. I see no commercials because we feed the world.

To be honest, I haven't been watching TV much the last year or two, and can't really say whether they still broadcast any of them, but there were enough (UNICEF?) commercials about the subject some time ago.

We are capable of making more food than we consume, alot of the issues is distributing it wisely.

From what I heard the logistics costs just make it near impossible. I'm not 100% sure about this tho and don't feel like digging for a source.

And not send aid to the people when we end up feeding rebels or government forces that syphon the food and funds.

Sad but true.

Solinx
Posted Image

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr


#12 Cossack

Cossack

    title available

  • Project Team
  • 1,081 posts

Posted 28 October 2007 - 08:31 PM

I have long been a supporter of Malthusian Theory.

We are condemning ourselves (well, its the poorer nations that will be more affected than us) to a life to a life of squalor and poverty because instead of putting all of our ressources into infrastructure and new technology, we are putting it all into making our population bigger.

Notice how when technological advancements started to grow exponentially, population also started to grow exponentially?

Imagine the population of the 1600's with the technology of today...it would be a utopia....people are just to god damned stupid (or horny?) to realize it.

Not to mention, having only one child is equivalent to doubling your energy consumption. Whats easier....not having a child or using zero energy for your entire life....hmmm...I wonder :p

I like what people like Al Gore are doing today and trying to save our planet. Its just that their focus is all wrong. Saving our planet can be done alot easier with a condom than an energy efficient light-bulb.

BTW, I already started a topic about this a while back, but Im glad its being brought up again. :rolleyes:
http://forums.revora...showtopic=43518

#13 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 28 October 2007 - 09:58 PM

"We" is used to indicate humanity in general I think... (edit: Alright, I was wrong here ;) )


meant in both ways, i just added a bit of my history to pwn his argument twice over.

I like what people like Al Gore are doing today and trying to save our planet. Its just that their focus is all wrong. Saving our planet can be done alot easier with a condom than an energy efficient light-bulb.


well thats already being done. going for 0-1 instead of 1+ is what we got in our part of the world. its a fine way to measure the quality of life in a country. the problem is there is going to be a markant -10 or worse if things start going down the drain. the last world war 10% of the world population died from 1939-1946. considering the deadlyness of weapons these days a conventional war will most likely cause more.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users