Really? We were heading to disaster until Borlaug? Pray tell, what saved us from Malthus' original prediction? Yet another coincidental, nick-of-time discovery? Or is it just that these predictions of Malthusian catastrophes on a planetary level are absurd?

And why was Ehrlich wrong in all of his predictions in his bet with Simon? Did Borlaug screw him up as well? Or do these guys just really not understand scarcity and technology? If your model doesn't factor in new technology, and new technology repeatedly proves your predictions false, don't you think it is time to start factoring new technology into the equation?

 

Ahh, the Doctor's usual torrent of rhetorical questions, as opposed to citing facts and figures. I'll bet serious money that The Good Doctor has not and will not read the Wikipedia entry nor any other on the subject at hand. I tap the knee with my little hammer and the leg reflexively swings out.

Here's a lighter, more user-friendly BBC piece on Borlaug and Malthusianism. The author has the cheerful tone of the usually scientifically lightweight economist but does note that some challenge the long-term viability of "human ingenuity" in the face of continued population growth (at a 1.09% growth rate, world populations will double in about 65 years) and the environmental ravages of AGW.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47643456

 

I'm sorry, but given how shoddy the predictive capacity of neo-Malthusian philosophy is, I would also describe it as "scientifically lightweight."
Citing facts and figures? In 1968, the year Ehrlich published "The Population Bomb," where he predicted the death from famine of hundreds of millions in the 1970s - for which he said there was no solution at that point - it was inevitable - was 3.551 billion. At the end of the 1970s, the global population was 4.381 billion. A net increase, not decrease. Thus far, no Malthusian catastrophe. Then he claimed he was off a little, and this Population Bomb would go off in the 70s or 80s. Okay - adding a decade to his prediction, what was the result? In 1989, the global population was 5.241 billion. Again, a net increase. Maybe he was off again by another decade? 1999 - 6.067 billion. 2009? 6.874 billion. 2019? 7.715 billion. Since Ehrlich's dire prediction - which he claimed was inevitable, no way of stopping it, the global population has more than doubled, and yet we are feeding more people than we did in 1968, such that global poverty is declining.

Is this limitless? Probably not. But nobody really believe the population will continue indefinitely at this pace. All of the data suggests that the more advanced the civilization, the more developed, the lower the birth rates. As more and more of the planet is developed, we are likely to see birth rates decline globally - which we are. That is actually born out by the evidence, as opposed to these neo-Malthusian delusions.

Regardless of the area - food supplies, scarcity of critical elements, the Malthusians get it wrong.

 

...How sustainable those innovative practices will be in the face of AGW and continued population growth remains to be seen. The advent of 2, 3, 5 or whatever additional billions to global populations, and their growing lust for meat, may prove to be quite a challenge.

The OP of that other thread included this rather startling statement: "Land use is the major driver of the biodiversity collapse, with 70% of agriculture related to meat production."

So how does biodiversity fare when there are an even greater number of humans, and their appetite for meat is increasing at the same time?

 

Ken, your relevant biomass figures in the other thread made that point with crystalline clarity. The biodiversity of Earth will continue to diminish well into the future. We can only hope to save, in zoos, reserves, and egg-and-sperm banks or other sorts of refuges some fraction of the rich biological legacy which was our responsibility to maintain (smallpox, etc. excluded). A smaller, wiser future population may then attempt to restore as much of a lost world as possible.

 

Malthus was correct in his observations - from his standpoint, writing at the dawn of the industrial revolution, all human history could be described as a Malthusian trap. However, technology broke this trap by allowing greater agricultural productivity. This productivity continues to increase - but is of course not limitless. Given trends in fertility, the global population will likely cap at around 10 billion sometime mid century. Modern agriculture can feed this many people barring some end of the world climate change scenario in which we would be just as f#%*d if the global population was half its current size.

It’s a pointless thing to worry about or create policies around as the factors which drive declining fertility - economic growth, reproductive rights, empowerment of women, etc are justified on their own merits regardless of their impact on population growth

 

It's a pointless thing to worry about or create policies around as the factors which drive declining fertility - economic growth, reproductive rights, empowerment of women, etc are justified on their own merits regardless of their impact on population growth

Indeed they are justified on their own merits, to those such as you and me. Much of the Islamic world, and many high-growth third-world cultures have strongly differing views, especially on female empowerment. In fact, the new drive in many countries is to increase birth rates.

 

Don't forget the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 - see https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/ or https://fee.org/articles/the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/

Extrapolation is dangerous.

 

Extrapolation, though, is our only window into possible futures. I know you are not counseling the abandoning of extrapolation--it not only nourishes and arms realists like myself but extrapolation is the very lifeblood of those forecasting a future of unlimited abundance and prosperity for Earth's teeming billions--a planetary Disneyland! I can hardly wait.

 

Here is a Malthusian trap - check out the magnitude of past population declines in China

 

DrMike has provided us with excellent decade-by-decade figures showing the relentless growth of global population to numbers totally unprecedented in either human history or in the history of any other vertebrate species of similar physical size. I thank him for the figures, and repeat them here for emphasis, as they might get lost in the body of DrMike's post:

1968: 3.551 billions
1979: 4.381 billions
1989: 5.241 billions
1999: 6.067 billions
2009: 6.874 billions
2019: 7.715 billions

 

Great! And then pair it with this:

 

Go ahead and push for greater female equality - I'm all behind it, so long as you aren't including abortion in that. What were you other great ideas for dropping the population by 90%? And what timeframe do we need to accomplish that in? What is your worst-case scenario?

 

Again the questions (never the answers). I had no other "great ideas" for dropping the population by 90% as you know--that's why your "questions" are so often junk questions, thrown in to kill time/fill space. And since it's been 250 years since we had a population 10% that of today's, let's say it'll take 250 years to return to that. But you already knew that, so another junk question. And I have no worst-case scenario worked out. I am content with the analyses of the vast number of scientists and scientific associations that we are heading for very disruptive and dangerous times ahead due to AGW, environmental and biosphere degradation, coupled to an increase of billions in human population.

Why don't you provide us with your variation on the charlatan Julian Simon's wet dream of a limitless (literally) future paradise?

 

A table versus a graph! Both, it seems, are correct. By extrapolation and with a small helping of cause and effect, we can be sure that both trends will continue and that our descendants, although a bit crowded, will live like kings! But let's hope that at least the cattle and chickens survive this wonderful future so that they can have their Big Macs and McNuggets.

 

Given our ability to clone livestock, I think we'll at the very least be able to keep up a supply of animals to eat. Besides, we'll have Soylent Green by then.

 

I'm happy DrMike is not ascribing population growth as a spur to worldwide poverty reduction. Even the cautious UN report on the future of agriculture affirms that we currently are in a period of spreading food abundance as new agricultural practices continue to take hold, while simultaneously warning of the growing drags and curbs on agriculture occasioned by AGW and resource (often water) exhaustion, increasing toxicity of applied materials to the soil, the growing reliance upon monoculture crops, and social unrest as farmers attempt to cope with growing industrialization and commercializations of agriculture. This is called "extrapolation", and The Wise heed it and look to the future. The Silly whistle, and tell each other that everything will be just fine.

 

One of the biggest "monoculture crops" that we are seeing worldwide is the growth of corn for the production of ethanol to supposedly combat AGW. Thanks, environmentalists! An excellent example of the law of unintended consequences. And, as we know, you actually release more carbon into the atmosphere through all of this corn growth (the growing and harvesting and processing of the corn, coupled with the land cleared in new areas to grow corn, thanks to huge government subsidies in the name of fighting AGW) than is saved by adding ethanol to fuel.

 

Hello from the farm . I have witnessed the green revolution from it's beginning . It has peaked . What's next ? Me and Eve , we be getting Back to The Garden .

 

The dangers of extrapolation were mentioned a while ago. Mark Twain had something to say about that.

“In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

 

If we are going to extrapolate population growth, as SM would have us do, then can we not also find a way to quantify the rate of technological advancement and extrapolate that equally? For that matter, let's quantify the rate at which global food production has increased and extrapolate that as well. Why should only one of these categories be extrapolated?

 

Please do that! You will likely match Julian Simon's amazing extrapolation that Earth can easily sustain an endlessly growing population for, as he wrote, "the next 7 billion years". Again, you gotta love this stuff!

 

It is true that over the last decades we have not only increased our numbers greatly, but have also increased our ability to feed and otherwise provide for those numbers. However, there is always a price to pay, and in this case the cost has been borne by the biosphere in general. The damage is already severe and, even without further growth in either numbers or consumption, will continue. Further growth in numbers, per capita consumption, or both will only accelerate the speed at which the damage is occurring.

Not a pretty picture.

 

The damage is not severe , and balance may quickly be recovered . Eat locally . Hey , China! , oo'tuh wahn . Bees in the clover .

Fooling With Mother Nature shall not be diverted .

 

I think ya'all disrespect farmers . I am one . And perhaps a composer , too .
Brains a'blazing ?

 

Three stories on the draining of the world's aquifers, another Tragedy of the Commons scenario. Everybody drills their wells and pumps like crazy; nobody worries about draining the resource dry. Note: little or nothing said in the reports about the part that growing populations directly play in exacerbating the situation. The capacity of these aquifers is an integral part of what keeps the Green Revolution going. AGW aggravates the growing desertification seen in many areas, and adding billions more people atop those aquifers or otherwise dependent upon their waters will make the problem worse.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com....com/news/2014/08/140819-groundwater-california-drought-aquifers-hidden-crisis/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...63c-16c6-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.43ed41489ed0

https://longreads.com/2017/10/04/nestle-is-sucking-the-worlds-aquifers-dry/

 

Are you saying we are reaching "peak water?"

 

I have DrMike to thank for this reference--I saw a note about this book by marine biologist/ecologist Drew Harvell on the same page as the interesting Scientific American story on the corn/ethanol question (I actually read others' linked references; others just post away without reference to links because they feel compelled to post something/anything right away).

The thrust of the research Dr. Harvell and her coworkers are doing is that AGW-caused ocean warming coupled with massive sewage runoff and the enormous influx of plastics into the marine ecosystem is resulting in epidemics of diseases afflicting marine organisms throughout the food chain, and examines closely the situation regarding starfish, salmon, abalone, and corals. Her book is Ocean Outbreak: Confronting the Rising Tide of Marine Disease. Epidemiologists among us should find something of interest here. This is an example, among many, of what fantasist economists--usually hopelessly ignorant of science--almost never factor into their own peculiar sort of extrapolations into the future.

http://www.sej.org/publications/bookshelf/ocean-outbreak-confronting-rising-tide-marine-disease

 

I do my own reading. I don't do homework issued by you.

 

What I'm hearing here is that resource management is complicated. That it is hard to provide necessities to populations. Got it. Necessity is the mother of invention. Not just a trite phrase.

 

I wonder how you pull yourself out of bed every day, with the weight of the world upon your shoulders, trying to sound the alarm of so many world-ending problems which you brilliantly have come up with the solutions for, if only people would listen. Truly a prophet is not beloved in his own country. Let's all take a moment to share our appreciation for our Talkclassical Jeremiah - Strange Magic. May I buy your next sandwich board when your current one wears out?

There might be some similarities:

 

^^^^Substance?? Or Shtik?? Your "contributions" are becoming parodies of themselves. Keep it up!:lol:

 

Why thank you. Your postings make me laugh. I thought I'd return the favor.

 

I apologize for derailing this highly important thread in a classical music forum, in which we are in the process of formulating precise strategies that will save our planet as we know it. If only we could create our own Captain Planet, we could all be his Planeteers!

 

"Don't Worry! Be Happy!"

 

One must infer from the tenor of your last several posts that you have ceased to even pretend to offer anything of substance on these issues. We understand.

And, in reference to my photo, note the smile!

 

And yet you still bark on command.

 

Regarding my reference to Phragmites as a potential source of feedstock for cellulose-derived methanol, I looked further into the literature trying to get a feel for North American or total worldwide acreage dominated by Reed. Could not find such, but I have seen "vast" acreages of Reed both by car and by kayak. The literature is almost unanimous in its description of the monoculture aspect of Reed and in its very poor habitat for both other competing plants or most vertebrates due to the extreme density of its growth pattern. Due to AGW, Phragmites is spreading rapidly and the literature deals mostly with ways to eliminate it via herbicide application or, sometimes, burning tracts of it. So its possibilies as a source to be harvested by suitable machinery for methanol production would seem to deal with several issues simultaneously. If an efficient method for converting cellulose to methanol is engineered, then Phragmites would be an ideal temporary candidate as raw material, while also restoring the harvested marshlands to their native and original biota.

 

Honestly, can you two just talk about the science of AGW, population, agriculture, etc. rather than constantly insulting or making fun of the other? Isn't talking about science MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more interesting?

 

I could not agree more. I am trying to hold up my end, but the quality of response I get is low. Plus I will never be intimidated by the likes of those with track records of flashing out libelous labels that would call for a punch in the nose on the street. Check the thread on eugenics for a classic example.

Edit: Feel free to delete all of the crap posts in this thread, with my blessing! It would be an excellent move.

 

wait till the water wars start
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/where-the-water-wars-of-the-future-will-be-fought/
Europe seems relatively OK, but we can expect massive migrations from Africa

 

One of the traits of AGW is its pernicious capability to exaggerate whatever weather/climate trends are current in many different areas. One climatologist summarized this by remarking that whatever weather you are used to, expect a lot more of it! This is turning up as stronger hurricanes, typhoons, etc., increasing aridity and desiccation in the Sahel, the Gobi, Australian outback, and more torrential rains and flooding in areas prone to such weather such as the central and southern US. The article you cited shows clearly the potential for continuing attempts at mass migration of populations driven by food or other climate-linked desperation into areas thought rightly or wrongly to be more favorable.