How will socialism deal with the Malthusian catastrophe?

How will socialism deal with the Malthusian catastrophe?

Other urls found in this thread:

un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html
theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/20/crop-yeilds-world-population
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/gp/perspectives8.html
abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3254035&page=1
nytimes.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/africans-battered-and-broke-surge-to-europes-door.html?_r=0
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/10305000/Africas-population-to-double-to-2.4-billion-by-2050.html
thenation.com/article/brain-drain-and-politics-immigration/
physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/
astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1019.html
dictionary.com/browse/solipsism?s=t
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Anti-natalist re-education camps.

How does this feed the masses?

The masses wont be as massive you dingus

Socialism is just a term for a broad range of economic systems. Just like capitalism, it cannot do anything about the Malthusian catastrophe. That's a problem which governments have to solve.

The proper solution would be an international agreement to reduce birth rates. The likely solution will be war, as usual.

Government issued sex bots for each and every worker which are so advanced and convenient that the birth rate will drop to a mere fraction of what it used to be, preventing catastrophe and saving mankind.

same way it solves all other problems, murdering the undesirables.

Socialism is the the only thing that can
In serious SHTF military production for need will be the only thing functioning

Socialism uses much fewer resources than capitalism thanks to things being produced for use and to last, as opposed to being overproduced for our consumerist culture and with planned obsolescence. This would greatly mitigate the Malthusian catastrophe, although it probably would not stop it, unless socialism mitigates it to the extent that we start hitting negative population growth (which we are projected to get in 2070) before this catastrophe even occurs. However, just in case it did occur, as the posters above me stated, society would have to agree to limit births in some way.

Socialism is a form of government.

also this

The masses are already pretty massive.

and predicted to get more so.

un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

and with the world population predicted to come close to 10 Billion by 2050,, crop yields are predicted to drop by 2050.

theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/20/crop-yeilds-world-population

Great counter argument. You treated me with respect and politely refuted my argument with logic and evidence.

Yes.. Capitalism has speed it up,, but socialism needs resources and population growth to work as well.

When you have negative population growth you cannot support your retirement plans for the elderly.

Every single notable Malthusian prediction in history has turned out to be false. See Bookchin's "The Population Myth" for for information on this. While overpopulation may be an issue in the future, it's an issue that is socially rooted rather than resulting purely from food access causing a geometric increase in population. Start giving people an education, a decent quality of life, access to birth control and abortion, and stop treating women like baby machines and population stops being an issue.

dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/gp/perspectives8.html

You are going to have declare a lot of folks undesirable and do a great deal of killing.

But just because something is completely immoral doesn't mean it isn't effective.

Bread lines will reduce population growth.

I think I was polite and respectful at least.

The fact is that right now yes, we have terrible population growth, but that's why you need anti-natalist policies.

And actually population is projected to begin to decrease after 14 billion because of the rising amount of use of condoms, pills, accessibility of birth control etc.

Sorry if I wasn't detailed, but I thought the first poster had done it enough.

Only because opening up new lands, the introduction of new crops or a scientific discovery enabled us to cheat Malthus.

Europe was close to it's population carrying capacity,, and then the Potato was introduced.

Europe cannot feed itself is dependent on imports from abroad. Places it one colonized.

and the Malthusian crisis would have already occurred if it was not for Fritz Haber.

There aren't any new lands to develop. There aren't any new food plants to discover,, and how many rabbits can science pull out of it's hat?

Can't stress this enough.


What's the solution you're offering btw op?

Secular values and increase standard of living. The poor and the religious are the people having lots of kids.
Look at Japan and western democracies. Japan is loosing it's shit because people don't into kids, and Europe would have the same problem if not for immigration. Worst case scenario; a one child policy is put in place, similar to what China had until recently.
Fixed. No need for genocide.

Didn't mean to sage. It's a valid question.

tbh the level that Japan is not having kids is causing massive infra-structural problems

I don't have a solution. I am very much afraid of the future. I know how the free market will handle this.. Whoever can afford to eat won't starve.

and with labor being predicted to be replaced with robots and such on a massive scale at the same time this crisis hits, I fear the working class will just starve.

If they just starve, I'm sure the workers will have to revolt at that point, user. Think Tsarist Russia 2.0. Let's just hope we don't end up with another Stalin.

China has stopped the one child policy for two reasons,, it produced a terrible gender imbalance, and they needed young people to support the elderly.

Japan's government is now offering incentives to have children. abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3254035&page=1

Population growth seems to be an economic necessity…

But if the famine is the result of an actually being unable to meet the demand for food, rather than market speculation and such then the revolution won't make that much difference.

We cannot redistribute what just isn't there.

Do the resources on the graph mean available to the population? They're being unfairly distributed as is. And why is it that we're using so many resources for things other than food? Isn't that a problem caused by capitalism? So a revolt would actually up productivity surely, in that sense.

E.G., make more farms for the workers, instead of just enough for the capitalist demand

Forced labour.

In a debt based economy it absolutely is. And having a major part of the population to old to care for themselves is obviously a bad idea. But a gradual population decline in a socialist system should be fine.
The China gender imbalance is a result of the culture valuing sons over daughters, I don't think western countries would experience the same. African and arab countries could be at risk of something similar happening. It comes down to how women are treated. Often a woman becomes a part of the man's family after marriage, putting parents of daughters at risk of not having anyone to take care of them when they grow old. This risk has to be negated by society stepping in to help the elderly, that way one removes the incentive to terminate female children.

We go full Khmer Rouge

will you kill people with glasses? :D
*hides*

It won't. And neither is socialism or communism a panacea for all the environmental issues resulting from the tragedy of the commons. These sorts of issues must be resolved in society outside the scope of economic/production arrangement.

Yep and people that don't wear glasses will be forced to work in the fields until they die

malthusian catastrophe is absolute bullshit.

We can feed the world, but we'd have to stop feeding cows.

also, that picture is NOT what Malthus' catastrophe nor theory was. It's a related but different event/concept, and of the two, Malthus' concept was considerably more retarded.

population growth slows with higher living standards. Much of europe's population is either in decline or levelled out

what was malthus's retarded concept, buddy?

Malthus' concept was not that you'd run out of resources. His idea was that the rate of economic production would never be able to actually catch up with the rate of population growth and that attempting to increase the rate of economic production through technology would simply allow for more people to be born before everything inevitably collapsed when it was outstripped by the level of population growth. If anything he said contained a grain of truth, it would have been impossible for people to get out of caves and chucking spears. According to this, the entirety of human civilization is just living on borrowed time, having managed to "cheat" itself out of the catastrophe over and over, like a loan debt dodger.

2-3 child policy?

Also if you're still not sure if this is a dumb idea, take into consideration that by necessity for this to be true, a widespread increase in productive technology would, by necessity, force the average productivity per labor-hour to go down

Yes and no. Yes,, it take ten pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, so it could be viewed as wasteful.

But you keep feeding people they keep having babies. So you've just put off the crisis for a little while longer.

Which makes the problem worse.. the educated and civilized people stop breeding and the ignorant and religious keep breeding. The future belongs to spooks.

I don't think any system can prevent it unfortunately. All we can do is try to get the word out, and also prepping for the coming ressource crisis.

Oh yeah, and we all know how more people inherently causes that growth of people to have more power, right? It's an us-vs-the niggers in africa game in the world and they outnumber us!

stop with the reactionary tripe.

I think a lot of people are Holla Forumstards on the logic of malthusianism and the impression that no socialists are willing to implement population control.

Wtf are you on about? A cornerstone of leftist thought is that the masses have power through their numbers.

I said nothing of race.. only education and culture. If you think someone whose only education was memorizing the Koran in a Madrasa would be an asset, please tell me how.

Power is not just about numbers, but function in society and the wealth they produce. Some naked starving kids in a sub-saharan ghetto have no agency or power. What are they going to do, go on a hunger strike?

The masses have power over their masters because the masters have an economic dependency upon the people they keep enslaved. In order for the ruling class to remain ruling, it needs to actually have a large amount of population to support it. The cornerstone of leftist thought is not just "Haha we can keep throwing cannon fodd-workers at you!" but rather that you can deny the minority what it needs simply by withholding the support of a portion of the large number of people it needs to keep it aloft.


It neither adds nor subtracts asset. The idea that the "good" among society are being outbred by the unwashed ignorant plebian masses is reactionary thought since antiquity. Population growth in africa is catching up thanks to the improvement in medical care available there. It's not going to cause some horde of teeming african masses to rush the "civilized" countries.

nytimes.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/africans-battered-and-broke-surge-to-europes-door.html?_r=0

...

Oh wow, you managed to show that places experiencing crises will have people leave. AMAZING! This completely changes what I said about africa's sustainable population increasing causing an increase in population and not somehow africans breeding far past what's sustainable and exporting this surplus population to the rest of the world!

and if there is no demand for their labor, and no money to support them on the dole in other nations?

Then the sustainable population didn't go up.

Not sure what you mean by sustainable..

All I know is that Africa's cities are growing,, and they are filled with terrible slums.

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/10305000/Africas-population-to-double-to-2.4-billion-by-2050.html

wew

Sustainable means that, given some amount of productivity per labor-hour dependent on technology, plus or minus any other conditions, a certain level of stably growing population will be able to reside there. The level of technological development in Africa went up significantly but at there are large factors that are also pushing down the sustainable population.

In short, medical availability went way up and at the same time there's been a new wave of violence in the region due in no small part to interference with the CIA and as a result of the wars in the middle east.

When the violence dies down the population will restablize and people will stop emigrating.

Holy fuck this OC

Top Kek

Violence is not the only reason people leave.

India is pretty stable,, but it's educated and wealthy leave to go to the west for a higher standard of living.

"The medical brain drain in India not only reduces the number of doctors available for care, but it also removes the people needed to push for healthcare reforms. "

a win for the developed nations with low birthrates a loss for undeveloped nations that invested in educating those people.

thenation.com/article/brain-drain-and-politics-immigration/

would you like me to bury this thread in links to articles that demonstrate the reality of this,, or would you like to go back to kiddie table and eat jello?

It's almost as if capitalism is actually a really shitty economic system.

I hear you.. but wealth is seductive.

Capitalism is shit but wealth is seductive? The abolition of capitalism largely abolishes value wealth accumulation. Abolishing capitalism more or less destroys the attraction to "wealth"

You forget one little detail.
Overpopulation would be a problem only under capitalism.

wait what.. do you we suddenly have unlimited resources under socialism? Do crops no longer require fertilizer and irrigation under socialism?

How could you possibly abolish the very human desire to have fancy things?

Under Socialism we could always allocate enough resources to fulfill the needs of the whole population, and if it ever grows so large that we wouldn't be able to feed everyone(which is a tall order since birthrates would decline after the end of poverty) we could start colonizing the solar system.

Holy shit they managed to draw all 3 children like they have down syndrome.

By recognizing that that's not the same as wealth and value accumulation.

under socialism you can have all the shiny things you want but you won't have any more value in your house than the man who lives in a plain apartment.

How will it not? Capitalism openly encourages growth and reproduction for the sake of it, it's a core element of how it works.

Oh no. not one of those people.

Read this. physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/

You cannot grow food in space,, and you will expend more resources just getting to a resource in space than it's worth.

Really…. My non-sustainable kobe beef steak will magically take as must resources to produce as a your bowl of unflavored tofu?

Growing food is just capturing energy from the sun and using it to construct chemical fuel for your body, then adding some other stuff your body used up like minerals.
You can grow food in space. You should not use space as your blanc check to solve any holes in your model of how to run earth, which is basically what capitalists are doing now.

Sure.. with massive investment… diminishing returns.

It's not worth building green houses on mars for bowl of oatmeal,, unless you are starving, and by the time you are starving you won't have the resources to go to Mars.

Read this.. sweet mother of god! read this.

physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/

...

is that a round-a-bout way of saying "scarcity" because the entire point of this thread is to warn you that in the future I lot of things you take for granted are going to be running out.

Also, instead of pointing to a long winded glorified blog post about all kinds of shit, why not point out the relevant passage?


Ye no shit its not worth it to try and use mars as farmland for earth. Thats not what I tried to say, you blind fuck. See
Obviously building greenhouses on mars is for people who live ON mars. When the tankie said "we will just colonise the solar system" he meant moving people offworld, which is what colonising means. You can't use mars for resources like the english used america, its way too fucking far. What he meant was that if we start to run out of resources due to OP's topic thing, instead of doing a one child policy, we colonise the solar system so that we have places with resources where people can live. Nobody is suggesting going to titan and transporting back methane. Nobody is suggesting mining mars and rocketing its resources back to earth. That is ridiculous. The only real use for space mining is things like rare earth metals, where small probes/lasers adjust the orbit or a comet/astroid/spacerock so it will eventually reach earth, after which we can catch it with whatever.

And if you are really adamant about
then it won't be if resources on earth run out. At some point the cost of space stuff will be less than the cost of earth stuff, a point I hope we will not reach, because that would be dystopia, but it can happen.

Due to capitalist forced overproduction, yes, this is a threat. Which is why it needs to be destroyed.

also no that's not what value means. But you're very obviously not going to seriously bother with theory and instead just bring up every Holla Forums concern troll topic there is so it doesn't matter.

a fair request.

"Space is a hostile place for humans. It’s mostly empty, though not lacking in deadly ionizing radiation and cosmic rays. What few resources exist are so mind-blowingly scattered that they would seem to be utterly absent to the casual observer."

So what does "value" mean if it doesn't come from scarcity? Please explain.

It comes from labor and the payment thereof :^)

I fail to see the problem here. We just do what we are doing now, go sit on a clump of resources. Only thing we have to deal with is radiation shielding, which, while an issue, is not impossible, and should be viable if we put our backs into it, if only on a small outpost scale in the foreseeable future.

Claiming that space is empty and dangerous, therefore stay on earth, doesnt make a lot of sense because earth is in space and its not exactly Eden either.

Just off yourself now, bucko.
Also it's not Mars, it would be Europa for example. In the 22. century setting up a permanent, self-sufficient base there will most probably be feasible.

You don't aren't comprehending the absurd distances involved.

"However, there are practical realities to consider. If we extend our solar system model using the standard-size Earth globe as our reference, the Moon is 30 ft (9 m) away, and is about the size of an apple. The sun is 2.2 miles (3.6 km) away. Mars is sometimes as close as 0.8 mi (1.3 km) and sometimes as far as 6 mi (10 km)."

the moon rocks cost over thirty grand a pound in 1970's dollars to bring to Earth, and that was just men walking about on the surface picking up random stones.

astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1019.html

and space is absurdly hostile to life compared to earth.

If the ship sinks, and you have a life raft, you stand some chance of rescue. The ocean is vast, but it’s a two-dimensional vastness teeming with human activity (compared to any realistic vision of 3-d space inhabitation even within the confines of our solar system). People have survived for months on the open ocean, subsisting on the elements around them. Running out of air is not a problem. Fresh water falls out of the sky as rain. Critters that are attracted to the cover of your life raft provide a source of food. I recommend the book 117 Days Adrift for a gripping account of a British couple who survived such an ordeal. Sometimes edible fish would actually jump into their dinghy. By contrast, a hamburger has never slammed into the side of the space shuttle in orbit, and I very much doubt that chicken nuggets are going to float up seeking the shelter of your space rescue pod!

If you fall overboard in the ocean, you can conceivably survive for a day or more depending on water temperature. I have actually met a guy who twice survived being stranded overnight treading water in the ocean—once in Indonesia and another time in Australia! In space, you’re dealing with a life expectancy of about one minute, unless you’re lucky enough to be suited up for the unexpected accident—in which case you have a perhaps a few hours to enjoy the view.


Your star trek fantasy will not stop the Malthusian Crisis.

so fucking what… Trillions of dollars to be mere handful of people on Mars where they'll spend the rest of their lives in a space the size of garden shed, drinking recycled urine and eating algae chips.

Besides giving space cadets a hard-on what does it do?

my sides

You must be in some special ed program or something, or a really shitty Holla Forumsintelpro

It's that reactionary Holla Forumslack who got banned a few months ago for being cancer who only ever brought up topics like this..

Wew, thought that much.
He doesn't even know that conquering space is a socialist goal
Also, this is now a glorious space socialism thread

The money represents resources and labor.. you may be able to eliminate currency but you cannot change the reality of things requiring materials, effort and time.

Reality is reactionary?

dude you already disqualified yourself by talking about a falling rate of profit in a socialist marketless economy. Now shoo

I do understand the "absurd" distances of something I've been reading, obsessing and enthusiastic about since i was 3, thank you very much.

learn to read


Hahaha, tell that to anyone on a ship before radio was in use. Shipwrecking in 1700 meant you were fucking dead, you are going to drift the ocean until you starve to death or die of thirst.

Nobody here is suggesting living in space, dickhead. Stop trying to put words into my mouth and start reading what I actually said. Don't shove me in with that retarded tankie and anarcho kiddie just because I disagree with your notion that "space is evil and we should just be good hippies and stay on our planet and be one with nature man because men isnt supposed to fly" or some shit.

Kill yourself you utter moron, I am not suggesting "huuruhuhuh lol starstrek" in the slightest, you are just projecting your strawman onto me because you are butthurt as fuck by one tankie saying "lol space".

Also, I dont see why you are so adamant about "muh resource crisis" when we, as rational human being, can keep our population under control, and non-energy resources like iron dont magically disappear, and we do not have to rely on non renewable resources like oil or coal. Humans can solve "muh malthusian crisis" and we will do so. We will do so and at the same time go to mars because fuck you we can, and we will. Humans are motivated to risk their lives and limbs to reach the top of a fucking mountain, we will also sacrifice ourselves just to do the "impossible".

And if you think humans are too retarded to keep their population in check and use renewable resources in place of non renewables (which is 100% possible so long as the sun does not stop working, since all resources are also made in some way with energy), then you might as well stop posting or living entirely because then our species is a fucking cancer and deserves to die and suffer all that it does.

Also, to alleviate you from your stuggles of wrapping your head around what tanko and ancom are trying to say, they are referring to the LTV and a more automated society where the amount of labour required for products is so low that the value of it (expressed in labour) approaches zero (labour of the past creating endless products). And since all resources are renewable if you throw enough energy at it, therefore the value of these resources is also zero rounded down. LTV also states that a resource does not have value in and of itself, IE iron ore in the ground is worthless, it is only labour that gives it value by extracting it. Socialism also does not revolve around infinite growth of consumption so the rate of resource consumption should not meaningfully increase beyond a certain point (not that that would be physically possible, you can only use so much stuff, stuff you dont use gets recycled.)

Now good night, and think about being less autistic.

Not profit.. simply "diminishing returns"

In economics, diminishing returns is the decrease in the marginal output of a production process as the amount of a single factor of production is incrementally increased, while the amounts of all other factors of production stay constant.

This is part of the problem of peak oil.. Back in 1900 when there were active oil fields in Ohio and Pennsylvania, it took one barrel of oil worth of energy to get one hundred barrels of oil out of the ground,, with fracking you spend one barrels worth of energy to get only four barrels of oil.

Even without profits for speculators,, things still require effort,, and sometimes the effort is not worth the results.

Did this clear up our misunderstanding?

To add:

They can, and if they can't they are talking about a theoratical where it can be.

Then we need to do some real good birth control to make sure we do, one child policy cuts population in half.

My fucking sides
nigga u get better each post eggs dee
pls continue, your outbursts are nigh-ethereal

Seems pretty fucking worthwhile to me.

I do believe this,, and history support this.

There's a book with several cultures running their environment and dying out because of it. (see pic)

Easter island is my fav. They deforested the island building those big stone heads,, the result erosion made their agriculture crash and they couldn't leave because they didn't have any tree to make boats from.

Not as worthwhile as the 100 barrels is it,, but that easy oil is gone..and with space travel you'll use up 100 of x to get 1 or 2x,, but it will be from space and that's super cool so it won't matter.

I'm not saying "lol space", I'm talking about feasible settling projects on Europa, which we can reach with probes now, and which has water btw.

Then you should stop posting because it is inevitable, talking about it makes no difference. If this is true then the human race is literally a fucking cancer and I am glad it will die out. Maybe this fucking society will finally do one good thing in its long ass history and select for people who actually do plan ahead for the future by wiping everyone else out. Probably not though.


Talking about century away projects with tech we don't really have atm if not really a good argument when discussing a supposedly imminent total resource collapse due to human nature being retarded.

Peak oil is fake?


Scientists' consensus is that a layer of liquid water exists beneath Europa's surface, and that heat from tidal flexing allows the subsurface ocean to remain liquid.[14][55] Europa's surface temperature averages about 110 K (−160 °C; −260 °F) at the equator and only 50 K (−220 °C; −370 °F) at the poles, keeping Europa's icy crust as hard as granite

What a paradise.! Have fun there.

Racial cleansing of the non-white masses.

There will be plentiful resources once the fat is cut.

You sure youre not talking about americans?

Well that's the thing. It's not imminent, and it won't be for centuries. This whole overpopulation shit is such a fucking meme, I bet OP drew his knowledge from a TAA video or some shit.
Why would I even bother to seriously engage this fuckhead?

But does make a difference. the collapse of our current economic system and from of civilization is not the end of humanity, just a fair terrible culling of it.

People will live on.. You could live off dandelion leaves and grass hoppers if you had to.

But only religious nut jobs and racist maniacs are preparing for this crash.

I would like the continuation of humanity to be something other than those people.

Then you have three options
1. Kill the people who have wrongthink opnions
2. Gain political and monetary power and use it to influence the media and create propaganda trying to sway the masses away from wrongthink
3. Cry in a fucking corner because you're an autistic teenager

I agree, I'm just trying to explain the stupid logic of OP. You really shouldn't engage with someone who is basically hobo related.


Go recruit for your loony prepping group somewhere else and stop watching so much apocalypse movies. If I die because I refuse to acknowledge your idiocy then obviously all the loony preppers were Ubermenschen and they should live, not me.

I know lad, but his posts are so much fun to read.
He's like a living Alex Jones commercial for water filters.

Also I still think you shouldn't use space in that manner. As much as I love space and space exploration, I try to keep predictions for "i think this will happen" on a timescale of 50 years max that is possible with slightly better versions of what we have now. Not that I dont like the occasional space colonisation fantasy.

Do you have a site I can buy gold on?

Science-fiction should be banned imho

and you disregard all the links and such I have posted about population growth, fossil aquifer depletion, peak oil, peak phosphorus, and what-not on what grounds?

Because it makes you unhappy?

Sci-Fi is too socialist to get b&
You should read "The air seller" where some upstart Porky tries to destroy the Earth's atmosphere and then sell air to people.

Fifty years.. That's nearly how long it's been since anyone went to the moon isn't it?

bruh

sauce?

I have read all the shit on peak phosphorus and peak oil and shit already many times before, stop thinking you are hot shit because you read some scary pop science articles about how the worlds going to end. I use the internet too and I watched a lot of all this shit too. You're not "more woke" than us just because you get paranoid as fuck. I mean fuck even if all this shit is true and capitalism did nothing to tackle it then you wouldnt have any fucking control over it, and all your "prep work" would probably be for nothing because you can't do shit against a group of 100 people who hear you're some crazy motherfucker with 50 barrels of corn in his basement, no matter how many guns you got.


Yes, because as your tiny sliver of sanity said before, there is no reason to go to the moon except for prestige.

It typically gives people hopes that cannot happen in reality.

What part of that question was solipstry?

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside of the mind.

Found it online sorry

Checking out of this retarded thread.

...

dictionary.com/browse/solipsism?s=t
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsism

bruh

"peak phosphorous" is a more pressing concern mostly because that one might run out before capitalism ends which will have disastrous consequences for the world under capitalism.

and how am doing that?

It would take me a lifetime to refute all the bad arguments made in this thread.

Through rampant denialism.

...

when did i mention post-scarcity?

it won't

I'm as deeply worried as anyone. Are we being too hasty? What does Malthus assume about the world?

(1) Population increase operates as a natural exponential curve beyond conscientious control.
(2) The development of new methods of production is flat.

Should we agree?

There's all the reason in the world to believe in our ability to conscientiously solve problems with populations and resources! A tough example: China's one child policy.

Is it even clear any longer that population even works as Malthus envisioned? How many of your friends are having big families?

The post-industrial nations have, provided sufficient resources, controlled growth of their own individual wills. The reason why is obvious- in a post-industrial situation, child rearing is painful and of merely spiritual benefit. One suffers exponentially diminishing emotional returns after the first child and looses resources (and, for all but the most wealthy, status and comfort) linearly. The Malthusian pressures that fired agricultural revolution gave us effective birth control. Industrial farming frees us from needing children to work the land. It would take another war and well-distributed economic boom like the late 40s through the lates 60s to ever turn that spigot on again.

There's no need for us to wallow in the old Malthusian gloom. I've not even including discussion on the possibility of technical revolution in production. We in the US obviously oversupply on agriculture already. We are spectacular on food. We could stand to eat less, frankly, lol.

We can see our problems coming and prepare. Malthus was wrong in his own age when he had good reason to pen his theory. He is more so today.

Yes, and not purely.
He's making a point about cost of production. All else being equal, kobe beef will always take more resources and effort to produce than tofu. Markets have price mechanisms to reflect this (and much else).

Ano..

OPEC are dumping

as the population increases the rate of emigration does too. Half of Africa is in a physical water shortage. That is the aquifers and groundwater are depleted. These mass movements are here to stay and likely will only accelerate.

That's US production- what with are not being in OPEC that's not much of an explainer.

and the other half is in an economic water shortage because we forced them to sell all their water to cola and nestle.
maybe we should start demolishing some of their trucks.

And? Controlling demand and population means *actually* controlling it. Migrant hunting season would fix that easier than most other are fixed if it came to it. They have to be forced to realize they can't breed themselves to death any more than the rest of the world.

world pop is capped at 10 mil because UN makes condoms for indians now
read the UN data you pissy little commie freaks

also resources aren't just a big line

ho

he

hu

haha

you're supposed to use double asterisk , dummy

our current food production levels could hypothetically support 11 billion people, we have a capitalist crisis, not a malthusian crisis