Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Do you subscribe to Malthusian Theory?

Yes18%18% - 9
No18%18% - 9
What the hell are you on about? (<-- just leave now)62%62% - 30
Total: 48
2006-07-24 15:53:20
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6769|Portland, OR USA
quick fingers an an idle mind

sadly it seems my perception was correct and the vast majority have no clue what I'm on about in the first place.  See why I'm glum?  People are freakin' retarded.

Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-07-24 15:54:26)

2006-07-24 15:55:03
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6874|949

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Snipedya14 wrote:

“Necessity, the mother of invention”
2 points if you can name the author.....5 points if you can name the publication.
Plato's Republic FTW!
2006-07-24 15:55:06
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6886|Seattle, WA

PuckMercury wrote:

quick fingers an an idle mind

sadly it seems my perception was correct and the vast majority have no clue what I'm on about in the first place.  See why I'm glum?  People are freakin' retarded.
LMFAO...alright THATS the reason I was looking for.  I agree, 100%.  Beers on me.
2006-07-24 15:56:19
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6886|Seattle, WA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Snipedya14 wrote:

“Necessity, the mother of invention”
2 points if you can name the author.....5 points if you can name the publication.
Plato's Republic FTW!
Ding Ding Ding!!!

7 points to KEN

https://www.wddg.com/images/victory.jpg
2006-07-24 16:02:43
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6874|949

Malthusian Theory is exactly that - one man's theory

Thomas Malthus was able to foresee certain problems with the way the rapidly modernizing society he was a part of was developing.  He was writing about the microcosm of where he lived (London I believe, but I may be mistaken), but the theory does have global implications.  However, one great misfortune of his time on Earth was that he was unable to witness the mass industrialization of modern societies.  This and this alone has been the main force dislodging Malthus' theory from becoming reality.  Our technological advances are still propping up our ability to sustain population.  I can't say what it will be like in 20, 50, even 100 years, but I do not believe that we (humans on Earth) have to worry about the ability of the land to sustain our population.  That being said, regardless of Malthusian Theory, the world (with westernized, industrialized nations as leaders) needs to become a more self-sustaining unit than it is currently, without a doubt.
2006-07-24 16:07:56
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6769|Portland, OR USA
I believe that industrialization has done wonders to stave the realization of the implications of this theory, but I don't think it has eliminated them.  It has not produced new resources, merely put into place a much more efficient mechanism by which we utilize them.

The world is already self-sustaining and has no choice but to be.  That being said, I feel elements within the world (namely the US for instance) need to become more self sufficient absolutely.  I think we abandoned a very prudent mindset in isolationism.

That being said, WWII and the cold war are two of the most helpful events in history for the advancements of technology.
2006-07-24 16:09:21
Snipedya14
Dont tread on me
+77|6937|Mountains of West Virginia

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Snipedya14 wrote:

“Necessity, the mother of invention”
2 points if you can name the author.....5 points if you can name the publication.
Its George Farquhar. As far as the publication, beats me..
2006-07-24 16:10:43
Ben>You
Member
+90|6768
Malthus, however dreary or pessemistic he was, sure as hell knew what he was talking about.
2006-07-24 16:27:02
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6812|Portland, OR, USA
The way the earths going now we really don't have a long time left.  I think Puck said somewhere earlier in the post that we should be thinking ahead 100 years which really isn't a long time (or something along those lines).  But now I hear they're giving the ice caps 100 years before it's all water.  I feel that the coastal regions that we have been inhabiting will all disappear under a nice blanket of salt water.

My point.. there are many other issues that we must first address (because for some reason multi tasking isn't really any governments forte), global warming is a substantial threat just to name one.  Otherwise, we will end up with much less space then we have now to work with, and by then many many more people.  The next generation has a LOT on their plate and from what I am seeing today, they're going to struggle with it.   I hope we get someone in office with their head at least half way out of their ass, otherwise, it really doesn't look like the earth will be around too much longer.

I hate ignorant people
2006-07-24 17:29:28
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6886|Seattle, WA

Snipedya14 wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Snipedya14 wrote:

“Necessity, the mother of invention”
2 points if you can name the author.....5 points if you can name the publication.
Its George Farquhar. As far as the publication, beats me..
Ummm, try Plato...
Maybe Farquahar quoted Plato, and you didn't realize.
2006-07-24 17:47:06
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6924|Canada
It makes perfect sense, and on a side note, it's not just food that is becoming more hard to get it's also energy.  During Malthus' time he wasn't able to predict the usage of energy in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Look at the oil crisis..

Every other form of life follows this rule, during times of abundance populations will grow, to the point where they can't sustain their population.  Bacteria exhibit the same, ants, bees, mice, cats/dogs, the govt in Bangladesh (very sad what's happening there) ( not comparing them to animals)

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-24 17:50:24)

2006-07-24 17:50:28
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6769|Portland, OR USA
to be honest, I'm not as concerned about energy.  There are nearly infinite ways to efficiently produce energy.  Nuclear fusion not the least among them, and that's an already realized technology.  This is to say nothing of technologies yet to be realized.  I think we face running out of raw material before global brown outs.

This is all of course to say nothing of any number of uncontrollable events which could happen to our planet of which there is no contingency involving continued life on this Earth.
2006-07-24 21:15:26
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6812|Portland, OR, USA

Spumantiii wrote:

It makes perfect sense, and on a side note, it's not just food that is becoming more hard to get it's also energy.  During Malthus' time he wasn't able to predict the usage of energy in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Look at the oil crisis..

Every other form of life follows this rule, during times of abundance populations will grow, to the point where they can't sustain their population.  Bacteria exhibit the same, ants, bees, mice, cats/dogs, the govt in Bangladesh (very sad what's happening there) ( not comparing them to animals)
carrying capacity is the term i believe.  and humans have cheated that for sooo long with medicine, domestication of animals, etc.  Eventually its going to come back and bite us in the ass big time. 

bird flu anyone?
2006-07-24 21:19:10
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6769|Portland, OR USA
we're at the top of our food chain, the only thing keeping our population in check is disease and attrition (war, murder, any number of other of society's shinier qualities)

To that end, once we cure cancer or AIDS something worse will come along.  It has to.  It is necessary for us to survive.
2006-07-24 21:29:14
vanmani
Unintentionally Verbose
+26|6833|Australia

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

FWIW: I really have no opinion on this but here is a FACT to consider.....

If we took all the people ON THE EARTH, we can even round UP to 7 billion people.  Divide everyone into 4 people families and give them a 2 story house on a 3/4acre lot, and have ALL THESE houses in Texas, if all these houses and all these people were theorhetically in texas, SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE.....there would still be 1/3 of the state left for commercializing, industrializing....etc.  ALL OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH would only occupy 2/3 the state of Texas.  This is just to explain square footage (of course this scenario is not possible, need more room for job,fun,etc, but there is still even room for that).... if you still don't think there is enough room in the WORLD let alone Texas, for all of humanity, something is wrong with you.

Edit: Also Malthus' work was mainly directed toward micro social economic systems, not the entire world in the future.  There is no way someone in 1798 could have predicted the huge population boom in the late 19th and 20th century.  Yawn, topic over.
Just to input here. Do you really think a family of 4 can sustain itself on a 3/4 acre lot? Producing all their own food, clothing, disposing of their waste etc.?

No. They may have a 3/4 acre lot to live in, but they won't have the means to live.
2006-07-24 21:33:06
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6769|Portland, OR USA
of course not.  As he said, he didn't address many aspects needed to maintain what we call a worthwhile existence.  While I disagree with his ultimate arguement that it isn't a really a big problem, the situation he presented served as a very powerful illustrative tool to demonstrate his point.

That being said, he's totally wrong.   

Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-07-24 21:33:16)

2006-07-24 21:42:54
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6782|vancouver
Lemme guess, some people here are "morally opposed" to contraceptives... ?
2006-07-24 23:48:14
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6812|Portland, OR, USA
i'm not
2006-07-24 23:52:06
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6886|Seattle, WA

vanmani wrote:

No. They may have a 3/4 acre lot to live in, but they won't have the means to live.
OMG, are you blind...

here is a quote from me, look back if you don't believe me:

'AlbertWesker[RE wrote:

This is just to explain square footage (of course this scenario is not possible, need more room for job,fun,etc
I was just making the point that A LOT of people don't fill up that much space, at least physically and WITH A HOUSE.  You're telling me even if you double that acreage. 1.5 acres for each family.  Only a little more than texas would be inhabited by the WORLD, and there is still concern for growth?

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-24 23:52:31)

2006-07-25 04:15:26
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6769|Portland, OR USA

spastic bullet wrote:

Lemme guess, some people here are "morally opposed" to contraceptives... ?
wha?

what does that have to do with anything?  Are you honestly suggesting that as a means to control population at a global level?
2006-07-25 04:38:01
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6782|vancouver

PuckMercury wrote:

spastic bullet wrote:

Lemme guess, some people here are "morally opposed" to contraceptives... ?
wha?

what does that have to do with anything?  Are you honestly suggesting that as a means to control population at a global level?
Well, I guess the "morally opposed" part is pure speculation so I'll retract that... unless somebody is?

But yeah, contraception is a fucking awesome means of controlling population at any level.  Pun fully fucking intended.  Fuck yeah! 

I don't know about you but I practically only have to look at a girl and she's pregnant.  That is some seriously tiresome shit, so bring the contraception ON.  Take that, malthusiasts.
2006-07-25 05:23:39
cosmichippo
Member
+5|6728|New Brunswick, Canada
I’ll tell you what I subscribe to. I propose that we have plenty of resources (tapped and untapped) to preserve our Earth for countless centuries. Ie. Go do some research on how much Oil we have in reserves, how much each country produces, imports, exports, and most importantly, how much each of these countries consumes. The reserves in Canada alone are astronomical when comparing our consumption and exports.
Furthermore, weak evidence that our New-World-Order, Neo-Cons, Globalists offer, would lead you to believe that we are in dire straits and approaching complete and utter decadence. Evidence what I subscribe to as, “artificial scarcity”. Yes, artificial scarcity…and bundled with that, they present it as a major “problem” and as a result produces a “Reaction” from the people, and of course following suit, a “solution”. Problem-Reaction-Solution, is not a new strategy or technique founded by our current sick and twisted leaders (and no, I do not mean Bush,--he’s merely a puppet to the real powers that be.) This strategy has been in place long before they ever conjured up such evil deeds. Most notably, Adolph Hitler and the fire at Reich stag, where he burned his own parliament to instill fear into the people (creating a Problem) and  blaming the German Communist Party. As a result furthered his own power in Legislation, quickly establishing a Brain-washed Armageddon size army. Some other Notable Problem—Action—Solution scenarios are:
The September 11 attacks (go read the declassified C.I.A Northwoods documents), the Oklahoma City Bombing the1992 World Trade Center Bombing, and the incidents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas were actually instigated or exacerbated by the Federal Government as a means of further centralizing power and creating fear in the populace so they'll willingly surrender some of their Constitutional liberties for safety.

My big point in all of this is simple…Don’t be concerned with these ridiculous artificial scarcities..tackle the real problems before it is too late! I fear it maybe already to late.

Peace
Cosmic
2006-07-25 08:09:33
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6769|Portland, OR USA
you're entirely missing the point.  This has nothing to do with oil.  This has nothing to do with modern day scarcities.  Please do basic research.
2006-07-25 09:45:25
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6978|Salt Lake City

Keep something in mind.  You have to look beyond what land is available and actually habitable.  Humans like to think they have everything figured out.  If we create a ecological problem, we try to implement a man made solution, which in turn causes more problems.  We are all part of an ecological system that is so complex, even scientists still don't fully understand the complexity.

Just because there is room to expand doesn't mean we can without creating an unforeseen, negative impact.  Nature has balance.  For every prey there is a predator, a balance that must be maintained.  When a link is damaged or severed, the change are like a ripple in a pond.

I believe that if humans do not control growth at a point that is sustainable, then nature will find a way to do it for us.  It always has, it always will, and we are no exception.
2006-07-25 10:10:17
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6924|Canada

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

FWIW: I really have no opinion on this but here is a FACT to consider.....

If we took all the people ON THE EARTH, we can even round UP to 7 billion people.  Divide everyone into 4 people families and give them a 2 story house on a 3/4acre lot, and have ALL THESE houses in Texas, if all these houses and all these people were theorhetically in texas, SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE.....there would still be 1/3 of the state left for commercializing, industrializing....etc.  ALL OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH would only occupy 2/3 the state of Texas.  This is just to explain square footage (of course this scenario is not possible, need more room for job,fun,etc, but there is still even room for that).... if you still don't think there is enough room in the WORLD let alone Texas, for all of humanity, something is wrong with you.

Edit: Also Malthus' work was mainly directed toward micro social economic systems, not the entire world in the future.  There is no way someone in 1798 could have predicted the huge population boom in the late 19th and 20th century.  Yawn, topic over.
more accurate:  take the square mileage of all the land on earth and divide by the population to get square miles per person  (that includes the top of mount everest and the middle of the sahara)


there WILL be a food problem if the overall temperature rises even an average of something like 2 degrees, the world will lose a huge amount of arable land.  Even today due to soil destruction and overuse some land is becoming harder to grow on, and with the temperature and weather changing slightly yearly now..  Much of the worlds food would be grown in the north american praries, and studies have shown that with slightly increased temperatures we could lose 40% of them in dustbowls.  Not to say it's impossible to feed people, but things like meat and other high cost foods will disappear in favor of things like kelp farms and algal bloom harvests.  The world's fish are apparently all gone, check it out.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-25 10:32:52)

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard