|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
PRagic

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're getting into Malthusian predictions here (made at the tail end of the 18th century), and those were disproven in the aftermath of the industrial revolution. Even the neo-Malthusians in the late 19602 to mid 1970s (Club of Rome) had dire predictions that never materialized, largely because of advances in technology and alternative fuels.
And there were no population trends dating back '10,000 years'. For most of human history population right up to after the plague and the black death was low and consistent with high crude birth and death rates. The global population started to shoot up given, again, advances in technology and increasing urbanization rates from place to place.
Having said that, the population delemna largely stems from the fact that it is a mulit-spatial, multi-faceted basket; there are a large number of countries with zero and negative population growth, and there are a number of countries that could indeed benefit from a demographic dividend; each scenario caries with it negative consequences. Approaches cannot be merely economic, as cultural norms and socio-economic and development level considerations carry weight.
A key problem is that the developed countries disproportionately use massive resourses and create equally massive amounts of wastes and contaminants. It's not a 'poor country problem'. For this reason there are now organizations global in scale that address concerns over resourses, pollution, and, yes, population, from a multi-actor perspective.
One possible solution would to increase the opportunity cost of having an additional child in LDCs by not only increasing educational opportunities across the board, but also raising wages in accordance with PPP, something refered to as wage equalization or the wage gap.
Interesting thread.... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cave Dweller wrote: |
The number 4 billion was the maximum number of people that can live on Earth without Earth basically being destroyed, deforested, erosion, desertification, and the such. |
Interesting, it conflicts with other posters who say 7B is sustainable and there is no problem. Obviously there's a problem. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
PRagic wrote: |
You're getting into Malthusian predictions here (made at the tail end of the 18th century), and those were disproven in the aftermath of the industrial revolution. Even the neo-Malthusians in the late 19602 to mid 1970s (Club of Rome) had dire predictions that never materialized, largely because of advances in technology and alternative fuels.
|
No, Malthus was right.
As you said, energy advances allowed the population to expand further, and that will continue until the population hits the ceiling allowed by the resources, then suffering will happen (already is happening), until a new energy advance. Malthus has been proved correct thus far.
PRagic wrote: |
And there were no population trends dating back '10,000 years'. For most of human history population right up to after the plague and the black death was low and consistent with high crude birth and death rates. The global population started to shoot up given, again, advances in technology and increasing urbanization rates from place to place. |
No, you are just unaware of the trend, because I discovered it.
I call it the "Neolithic dilemma". The population first started exploding 10K years ago because they found an "unlimited energy source", grains. The pattern continued for 10K years; each time the population hit the ceiling, some smart guy invented more productive farming/grinding techniques, but each new technology brought another population explosion, then famine and suffering, but the higher population resulted in a higher count of geniuses, which allowed them to come up with new technology. Humans could not stop the cycle because they did not have condoms, and because Neolithic people did not kill their babies like some hunter/gatherers did.
It happened, it is all in the history books, people just didn't read the books. See 10K year back estimates below. I basically ran Malthus' theory way back, because he didn't have the anthropology data during his time to know just how right he was (you are welcome dead Malthus!)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates
PRagic wrote: |
Having said that, the population delemna largely stems from... |
The population dilemma for 10K years has been --> lack of a population control method, which allowed the population to grow until resources were strained. This time is NOT different. The models are flawed because they think population will hit the cap and naturally stop, forever. Clearly they never read Malthus. Because what happens next, in 2200, or 2500, is a new "endless" energy source (I already know geniuses who are working on this). When that happens population will explode again, and 7B will look like nothing.
There's no basis for thinking it will self-manage, it hasn't yet.
PRagic wrote: |
One possible solution would to increase the opportunity cost of having an additional child in LDCs by not only increasing educational opportunities across the board, but also raising wages in accordance with PPP, something refered to as wage equalization or the wage gap. |
Agree, it has to be managed by humans using positive/negative economic incentives, not left up to fate. And glad someone else here knows something about the topic.
One child policy is not so bad, compared to the nastiness we currently live with due to overpopulation. However I don't see people anywhere close to grasping the situation, they will let it run another 10K years probably, or maybe until nature makes us extinct? Who knows... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PRagic

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree on all the previous points, but any discussion is good. Don't forget that Malthus didn't see eye to eye with Ricardo, or even Marx for that matter, economic history being what it is.
You need to publish that trend you discovered. I'm sure there are a lot of demographers who'd love to have a crack at it, especially if it's based on Wikipedia. Interesting stuff.
I still see the main flaw in these global population problem arguments as a denial or blanked dismissal of smaller scale dilemmas that vary from place to place, and are therefore critically embedded, something you're not addressing.
At any rate, let's not derail the thread, which is very well intentioned. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
PRagic wrote: |
You need to publish that trend you discovered. I'm sure there are a lot of demographers who'd love to have a crack at it, especially if it's based on Wikipedia. |
You're obviously a smart person, so not sure why you say stupid stuff. My theory is not based on Malthus, or Wikipedia. I independently noticed it, and people later brought to my attention that Malthus (with much narrower data) had noticed the same thing. Great minds think alike.
There is nothing controversial. Population growth happened (see trend which I linked, Wiki is not the source, they just post the source on the internet). Technology improvements happened, review the Neolithic. It's just two simple facts, put together.
PRagic wrote: |
I still see the main flaw in these global population problem arguments as a denial or blanked dismissal of smaller scale dilemmas that vary from place to place, and are therefore critically embedded, something you're not addressing. |
I already understand their models, and you are right...in the short-term.
But since I work macro analysis, I tend not give a shit about tiny little stuff happening here and there in a 100 year period. In hindsight it will all look like nothing. For example the place to place happenings of 5000 BC don't matter now. Yeah something here or there happened, and if looking at their 100yr view, sure...from their limited perspective, it may have seemed complex. But with time ALL populations in ALL places grew.
My problem with their garbage model is that they are looking at a 10K year trend, with a 100yr scope. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PRagic

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tisk tisk...no need for derogative comments. Never said ONLY focus on the little places. I said that it's a glocalization-type problem. If you do macro analysis, then you should know that you shouldn't necessarily prioritize any given scale., you need to connect the dots.
At any rate, aside from the snide remarks, good conversation. I'm done here so the thread can get back on track. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PRagic

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
But in my defense, I may have gotten confused because first you wrote this: "I basically ran Malthus' theory way back, because he didn't have the anthropology data during his time to know just how right he was (you are welcome dead Malthus!)... "
But then said this: "My theory is not based on Malthus". Tough to reconcile. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lithium

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
KimchiNinja wrote: |
Beeyee wrote: |
KimchiNinja wrote: |
Oh and population control, you've got to have a central alliance of governments that starts working together on how to decrease the Earth's population back from 7B, to 1B or whatever the ideal number is... |
You have to be kidding. You're basically calling for a world government working toward genocide.
Are you willing to be slaughtered in order to decrease the Earth's population? |
WTF? Population control is not killing people dummy, it's placing positive/negative incentives on child birth so that over the course of hundreds of years population is managed to some calculated ideal number.
Discussing the environment without discussing population is pointless, hence why I would never show up to these silly hippy meetings. |
Watermelon - red on the inside, green on the outside. Climate supporters are just dysfunctional communist that want to end capitalism. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't matter guys. None of us will be alive when it is unsustainable. Caring about the far distant future is futile. The Earth won't last forever, so who gives a shit? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cave Dweller
Joined: 17 Aug 2014 Location: Seoul
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, scientists, ESL Cafe posters....who to trust?
KimchiNinja wrote: |
Cave Dweller wrote: |
The number 4 billion was the maximum number of people that can live on Earth without Earth basically being destroyed, deforested, erosion, desertification, and the such. |
Interesting, it conflicts with other posters who say 7B is sustainable and there is no problem. Obviously there's a problem. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PRagic wrote: |
But in my defense, I may have gotten confused because first you wrote this: "I basically ran Malthus' theory way back, because he didn't have the anthropology data during his time to know just how right he was (you are welcome dead Malthus!)... "
But then said this: "My theory is not based on Malthus". Tough to reconcile. |
Sure, Malthus theory, or KN theory, it's the same pattern. Since people already know about Malthus we should just called it Malthus theory. What is important is that it has been going on much longer than Malthus realized. Now that we see this, if we run the models forward 1000 years instead of 100, we give the Malthus pattern enough time to repeat.
It's a fun topic, but I don't think the hippies at a march would know what we are talking about.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stain wrote: |
It doesn't matter guys. None of us will be alive when it is unsustainable. Caring about the far distant future is futile. |
This is central to human's larger more persistent problems.
Humans do not see, nor are they interested in, patterns which extend beyond their lifetime. Also since they have finite life spans it is difficult for them to start (and complete) tasks which must be continued for a thousand years.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Handsome Boy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 2:37 am Post subject: Bollocks to the climate change Hoax! |
|
|
Global Warming is a complete Hoax dreamed up by Maurice Strong, French Canadian billionaire, who was head of the UN in the seventies, essentially he is the De Facto leader of the UN, Ban Ki Moon is a mere front man!
I would urge many of you to watch Lord Christopher Monkton on Youtube who Al Gore won't even debate, no surprises there!
The green agenda is tax through the back door! and de-industrialization of
the West! Hence the reason why we are in such a mess and unable to produce anything because of the sustainable development policies implemented by Western governments. OUR ECONOMY IS DEAD!
Also watch the Youtube link below: Very Good!
http://youtu.be/T3Eo2YTQUr8: The Elites Plan for Global Extermination.
Webster Tarpley. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja

Joined: 01 May 2012 Location: Gangnam
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Bollocks to the climate change Hoax! |
|
|
Handsome Boy wrote: |
Global Warming is a complete Hoax dreamed up by Maurice Strong, French Canadian billionaire... |
Wow, I'm a skeptical person in general, but this level of denial is full retard. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Handsome Boy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Some of us can think out of the box! others can't!
Do your research and, which I have given you some leads on,
then give an opinion. Don't believe everything main stream news tells you
or government paid scientists for that matter. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|