Difference between revisions of "Malthusian Catastrophe"

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 6: Line 6:
 
<noinclude>
 
<noinclude>
  
{{H01| The Population Bomb}}
+
{{ref| Bad Predictions}}
{{H01| Tragedy of the commons}}
 
 
 
{{ref}}
 
 
* http://capx.co/dont-fear-the-population-explosion-human-ingenuity-will-feed-us-all/
 
* http://capx.co/dont-fear-the-population-explosion-human-ingenuity-will-feed-us-all/
 
* [[Wikipedia: Thomas Robert Malthus]]
 
* [[Wikipedia: Thomas Robert Malthus]]
Line 15: Line 12:
 
* [[Wikipedia: An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population]]
 
* [[Wikipedia: An_Essay_on_the_Principle_of_Population]]
 
{{/ref}}
 
{{/ref}}
[[Category:Terms]]
+
{{H01| The Population Bomb}}
 +
{{H01| Tragedy of the commons}}
 +
{{H01| Bad Predictions}}
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Terms]] [[Category:Bad Predictions]]  
 
</noinclude>
 
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 22:42, 1 February 2020

In 1798, this guy named Robert Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population , basically saying that since population growth was exceeding food production, our labor value would crash to zero, we’d all be poor and we were all going to die in 50 or 100 years (known as the Malthusian Catastrophe), if we didn’t give the government control over our breeding. Also we needed to “condemn the bad specimens to celibacy”. Hey, he must be right, he used math.

We ignored Malthus, and he was wrong about everything. The world not only didn’t go into meltdown by 1898 (or ever couple generations after that): it got better in every dimension along with population growth. But his ideas long outlived the era where they were proven wrong, and were often repeated by the the left like Keynes, or to this day.

Every time one the collectivist ideas fail (which is always), they try to repackage it (reinvent it), to sell the next gullible on the same bullshit. And this zombie has more lives than a cattery. But all the variants have a few things in common, their premise (humans can't control themselves and need government), their proposed solution (giving up our liberty/money to government to fix it), the outcome if we didn’t act (our near term violent demise, to add immediacy), and then finally — the unwillingness of the rational to heed their warnings, and then the complete lack of consequences that were predicted (proving that they were wrong all along).


GeekPirate.small.png

 
📚 References

The Population Bomb

When the 1960’s happened the hippie collectivist environmentalists started their watermelon movement (green on the outside, red on the inside). They had nothing logical to support their fear mongering, so they just went with the long disproven falsehood of Tragedy of the commons, again. First Garrett Hardin regurgitated the Tragedy of the commons, despite the fact that it was disproven 160 years before he wrote it. Then Ehrlich did a shallow, plagiaristic, pessimistic derivative of Hardin and Malthus, entitled "The Population Bomb", basically saying that if you didn’t give government all your money and rights, so they could enact compulsory population control, then there would be mass starvations and war in the 1970s and 1980s that would destroy civilization. Of course it didn't happen, but many on the left seems it will, soon, and believe in over-population is a problem. As far as we know the carrying capacity of the earth far expands with technology and exceeds population growth (so is infinite) -- and current projections are that we'll peak in population in a couple more generations (well below any imaginary ceiling), as currently the worlds population could fit in Texas. Only science deniers think overpopulation is a serious capacity problem. more...

Tragedy of the commons
TOC.jpg
We often get dire warnings about Malthusian Catastrophes, Ehrlich's population bombs and how individuals can't be trusted to manage shared interests. We need government to protect us from ourselves. History shows the opposite: individuals form small governments for common interests better than big governments, unless big government stops them.

more...

Bad Predictions
Bad Predictions.jpg

Not all bad predictions are by progressives or the left. But people are resistant to change, and progressives want change -- so in order to get change, they need to sensationalize problems and paint a utopic picture of what the solutions will be like. Whereas if you're conservative and want lesser change, or things to stay the same, you don't need to hype problems and can be skeptical (moderate) about solutions. Plus, conservatives are more cynical and look for ways that things can go wrong, thus negative predictions (about Unintended Consequences) are more likely to be on target. Thus the vast majority of bad predictions come from the left. more...