Conservatism, environmentalism and immigration

[Vanguard1917]

David Cameron, leader of the UK Conservative Party, has recently attacked immigration into Britain on the grounds that it leads to overpopulation and unsustainability. According to Cameron, population growth is putting a strain on society and that 'Our current level of population growth...is unsustainable'. (link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7067149.stm))

Cameron is calling for reductions in immigration from outside the EU, as well as a new border police force powers against immigrants.

Earlier this year, i argued on revleft that anti-immigration sentiment in Western society is increasingly being expressed by using the language and logic of environmentalism. I said: 'Old-fashioned racist arguments against immigration are no longer seen as legitimate in Western politics. Instead, it is now argued that mass immigration gives way to 'over-population' and 'unsustainability' - terms popularised by Greens.' (link (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63621&hl=))

Environmentalism, if taken to its logical conclusions, is hostile to immigration because it's hostile to population growth. Indeed, many environmentalists are arguing that the British population needs to be halved in order for it to be sustainable. Inevitably, this means that they're not big fans of immigration - which is a key cause of population growth in Western societies.

Any thoughts on this?

[Lynx]

Mass immigration is a symptom of inequality. Re. capitalism

Population growth is a threat to sustainability. Re. capitalism, technological limitations, energy & resource limitations.

I'm an environmentalist. I would have to be a nationalist / isolationist to be concerned about limiting immigration to one particular country.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:35 pm
Population growth is a threat to sustainability. Re. capitalism, technological limitations, energy & resource limitations.

Any evidence to back up your Malthusian claims?


I'm an environmentalist. I would have to be a nationalist / isolationist to be concerned about limiting immigration to one particular country.

So you support an open-door policy on immigration and the free and unrestricted mobility of people around the world?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+October 30, 2007 06:16 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ October 30, 2007 06:16 pm) Old-fashioned racist arguments against immigration are no longer seen as legitimate in Western politics. [/b]
I dispute this assertion. Old-fashioned racist arguments against immigration are making a comeback - see the recent Swiss elections for example.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Environmentalism, if taken to its logical conclusions, is hostile to immigration because it's hostile to population growth. Indeed, many environmentalists are arguing that the British population needs to be halved in order for it to be sustainable. Inevitably, this means that they're not big fans of immigration - which is a key cause of population growth in Western societies.
Any consistent environmentalist has to approach political issues from the point of view of the whole biosphere, not just one portion of it in one specific country.

Environmentalism, if taken to its logical conclusions, is hostile to population growth. But immigration is not population growth. Immigration is the relocation of people from one place to another, with no net increase in the total population of Earth. Therefore I don't see why environmentalists would be opposed to it.


Vanguard1917
Population growth is a threat to sustainability. Re. capitalism, technological limitations, energy & resource limitations.
Any evidence to back up your Malthusian claims?[/b][/quote]
Are you suggesting that the Earth can sustain an infinitely high number of people?

Look, Malthus or no Malthus, there are physical constraints on the number of people who can live on Earth. I happen to believe that we haven't hit the sustainable limit yet, but it is inevitable that we will hit it eventually.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 30, 2007 06:20 pm
Any consistent environmentalist has to approach political issues from the point of view of the whole biosphere, not just one portion of it in one specific country.

Environmentalism, if taken to its logical conclusions, is hostile to population growth. But immigration is not population growth. Immigration is the relocation of people from one place to another, with no net increase in the total population of Earth. Therefore I don't see why environmentalists would be opposed to it.
Well, let me just say that i'm not expecting consistency from environmentalists. I can tell you, however, that a policy of environmentalist organisations in Britain is to reduce the British population.


Are you suggesting that the Earth can sustain an infinitely high number of people?

No. What i am saying is that there is no evidence that an increase in the world population creates more problems for human beings. There has never been any evidence to back up Malthusian predictions.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:47 pm
Any evidence to back up your Malthusian claims?
Create a society based on material equality and then we'll see. Sustainable would mean there would be no long-term degradation of the environment. The energy factor is simple: energy consumed cannot exceed energy produced

So you support an open-door policy on immigration and the free and unrestricted mobility of people around the world?
Of course.


No. What i am saying is that there is no evidence that an increase in the world population creates more problems for human beings. There has never been any evidence to back up Malthusian predictions.
Eliminate inequality and you will end mass immigration.
Eliminate poverty and you will slow population growth.
If only we could convince most people of the need for socio-economic change and the futility of more waste (capitalism) and repression (immigration controls).

[Dimentio]

NumbersUSA lecture (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&q=NumbersUSA&total=40&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Could anyone say what NUSA really are?

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by Lynx+October 30, 2007 07:33 pm--> (Lynx @ October 30, 2007 07:33 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 01:47 pm
Any evidence to back up your Malthusian claims?
Create a society based on material equality and then we'll see. [/b]
That's not evidence.


Sustainable would mean there would be no long-term degradation of the environment. The energy factor is simple: energy consumed cannot exceed energy produced

It doesn't. And, with the adequate development of technologies of which we already know, there is no reason to fear that it will.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:33 pm

So you support an open-door policy on immigration and the free and unrestricted mobility of people around the world?
Of course.

It's good that you do, but most environmentalists simply don't. For example, environmentalists are one of the main opponents of international travel. The technological developments which have made global human mobility possible (e.g. air travel) are opposed by environmentalism.

[rouchambeau]

Let me get this straight. Conservatives are appropriating the language of environmentalists for their own agenda, and because of that environmentalism is wrong?


Environmentalism, if taken to its logical conclusions, is hostile to immigration because it's hostile to population growth.
No. Immigration does not, in the big picture, equal population growth. No people are produced when a number of people move from one country to another.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+October 30, 2007 08:47 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ October 30, 2007 08:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:33 pm

[email protected] 30, 2007 01:47 pm
Any evidence to back up your Malthusian claims?
Create a society based on material equality and then we'll see.
That's not evidence.[/b]
No, it's a benchmark.


Sustainable would mean there would be no long-term degradation of the environment. The energy factor is simple: energy consumed cannot exceed energy produced

It doesn't. And, with the adequate development of technologies of which we already know, there is no reason to fear that it will.
I will believe it when it happens. At a minimum I expect to see distribution problems solved.


It's good that you do, but most environmentalists simply don't. For example, environmentalists are one of the main opponents of international travel. The technological developments which have made global human mobility possible (e.g. air travel) are opposed by environmentalism.
What kind of environmentalists are you associating with? Save England and let the rest of the world go to hell?

[MarxSchmarx]

Vanguard is correct about the bogus "Malthusian" claims of xenophobes. However:


What i am saying is that there is no evidence that an increase in the world population creates more problems for human beings. There has never been any evidence to back up Malthusian predictions.

This is misleading.

The problem isn't an increase in population density per se - the problem is the availability of resources. If the amount of resources available increases at the same rate or faster than the population, then the adverse effects of population increase can be avoided.

As global agricultural efficiency and productivity normalizes, fisheries disappear, and the amount of land people can live on begins to saturate, the amount of resources available will no longer grow.

Then, and only then, will the Malthusians predictions be subject to a real test. But heretofore they have not been, because population increase has gone hand in hand with resource increases that are largely independent of population growth.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 04:57 am
As global agricultural efficiency and productivity normalizes, fisheries disappear, and the amount of land people can live on begins to saturate, the amount of resources available will no longer grow.

Then, and only then, will the Malthusians predictions be subject to a real test. But heretofore they have not been, because population increase has gone hand in hand with resource increases that are largely independent of population growth.
But these predictions are centuries old, and historical experience shows us that they're utterly wrong.

For example, Malthusians have long predicted food scarcity. But we know that food production has far outstripped population growth. Human hunger, when it exists, is caused by bad social and economic organisation - not by any absolute failure to produce food.

Contrary to Malthusian predictions that food will become more and more scarce, food is more abundant today than it has ever been before - partly as a result of developments in food production methods (intensive farming, biotechnology, etc.).

Also, you talk of resources as though they're a pre-given, fixed quantity outside of human beings. This is characteristic of Malthusian logic: Malthusians see the earth's resources as fixed and population as the key variable. Therefore, according to this view, more people must mean a greater drain on resources.

In reality, of course, that is rubbish: we can't talk of 'resources' as though they are a pre-given, fixed quantity that exist outside of human beings. Resources acquire meaning through human society, which is subject to historical development. For example, for the majority of societies throughout history, uranium and bauxite weren't considered resources. They became resources at a certain stage of historical and technological development. On the other hand, coal, which was considered a highly valuable resource in the past, is less and less considered as such today. The oceans were seens as an obstacle by early human societies; today, as a result of historical development, they're seen less as a problem and more as a resource.

So there's a fluid relationship between human beings and resources - not a fixed relationships as the Malthusians argue. As Marx pointed out, problems like poverty and hunger are caused by the way society is organised, not by the limits of nature on population.

[MarxSchmarx]

Vanguard:

Look, we agree on the important things. But methinks my position is misrepresented.

For example, I agree entirely with you that:


we know that food production has far outstripped population growth. Human hunger, when it exists, is caused by bad social and economic organisation - not by any absolute failure to produce food...
food is more abundant today than it has ever been before....
As Marx pointed out, problems like poverty and hunger are caused by the way society is organised, not by the limits of nature on population.

Of course.

But I think this is misrepresenting Malthus as well. From the Malthusian point of view, food is NOT necessarily more abundant to the "average" human being on earth today than it ever was. The absolute existence of resources is different from the abundance and accessibility of resources per se. For example, the king of England could horde all the resources and no one else gets jack shit.

I could argue that the number of people dying from starvation has gone up, rather than down, since the 1800s.

Even Malthus, although I doubt he ever says so explicitly, will say that if all the grain is concentrated in one place, the "carrying capacity" would be artificially lowered.

My point is that human need is not due to a low carrying capacity per se, but an artificially lowered carrying capacity. On that I think we agree.

The disagreement probably lies in statements like:


So there's a fluid relationship between human beings and resources - not a fixed relationships as the Malthusians argue.

which is a strawman. No one is saying resources are constant, only that they are bounded. There is a difference. Malthusians don't accuse you of equating "fluid" with "infinite", so you shouldn't accuse Malthusians of equating "not infinite" with "rigid" or "fixed" or some such.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:32 am
But I think this is misrepresenting Malthus as well. From the Malthusian point of view, food is NOT necessarily more abundant to the "average" human being on earth today than it ever was. The absolute existence of resources is different from the abundance and accessibility of resources per se. For example, the king of England could horde all the resources and no one else gets jack shit.
For Malthusian predictions to be accurate, food would have to become more scarce as population rises. But, fortunately, this has never actually materisalised: overall, food is more abundant today than ever before - and not just for the rich, but for the poor as well.


I could argue that the number of people dying from starvation has gone up, rather than down, since the 1800s.

How?



So there's a fluid relationship between human beings and resources - not a fixed relationships as the Malthusians argue.

which is a strawman. No one is saying resources are constant, only that they are bounded. There is a difference. Malthusians don't accuse you of equating "fluid" with "infinite", so you shouldn't accuse Malthusians of equating "not infinite" with "rigid" or "fixed" or some such.

Why is it a strawman? That is what the Malthusians argue. For them, the earth has a fixed amount of resources, and thus the main variable in the equation is the size of the human population. Therefore, any problem (war, disease, hunger, environmental degradation, etc.) can only be made worse by adding more human beings to the equation. Just look at the population policies of the neo-Malthusians in environmental groups and international organisations like the UN. They're all based on the understanding that a reduction in human numbers is needed to solve the world's problems.

[MarxSchmarx]

Vanguard:

You are absolutely right that population increase per se and high densities per se are not the problem. Just witness Japan or Holland.

But the problem is countries like India or Paraguay are not Japan or Belgium. They do not have an egalitarian tradition, a modern infrastructure, or a functioning government. Many countires don't have the capacity, under the present regimes, to import massive grain subsidies and distribute them evenly. Nor can they increase their productivity. sure, New Zealand and Singapor can do this, but for countries that can't, like Bangladesh and Mozambique, population explosion is a problem precisely because they can't increase their resources.




I could argue that the number of people dying from starvation has gone up, rather than down, since the 1800s.

How?

Let me focus on famines.

The American geographer Mike Davis attributes the most hunger deaths in the 19th century to the El Nino famine in the 19th century. The max is about 62 million, including the Irish famine.

In the 20th century, let's say the deaths under Mao and Stalin not due to wars, were mostly due to malnutrition and famine. Let's say mao's policies all told resulted in the deaths of 30 million people, and stalin was responsible for the famines claiming up to 15 million plus 10 million in the Gulags. So we're at 52 million between the USSR and the PRC. now add vietnam and China under the Japanese (15 million), Bengal in 43 (3 million), North Korea and Ethiopia (a million each), and in the 20th century we have about 72 million deaths.


food would have to become more scarce as population rises. But, fortunately, this has never actually materisalised

Unfortunately it has. I can think of a few well-documented examples, such as the American southwest, Easter Island, Rwanda, European settlements in Greenland, and perhaps Ireland. Not to mention the massive loss in agricultural productivity in the middle east following the population booms 4 thousand years ago.


Why is it a strawman? That is what the Malthusians argue. For them, the earth has a fixed amount of resources, and thus the main variable in the equation is the size of the human population.

Saying there is a carrying capacity given the present circumstances is different from saying there is an "absolute" carrying capacity that is innate, immobile, and cannot be changed at all no matter what.


They're all based on the understanding that a reduction in human numbers is needed to solve the world's problems.

Human reproductive potential is part of the problem. Again, whether this is an artifact of capitalist production is a bit beside the point. Given the present order of things, all else being equal, it is better to lower the global population. True, all else is never equal, but I fear that until the international community commits to "a chicken in every pot", lowering the population sizes is the best way to combat malnutrition.

[Vanguard1917]

In the 20th century, let's say the deaths under Mao and Stalin not due to wars, were mostly due to malnutrition and famine. Let's say mao's policies all told resulted in the deaths of 30 million people, and stalin was responsible for the famines claiming up to 15 million plus 10 million in the Gulags. So we're at 52 million between the USSR and the PRC. now add vietnam and China under the Japanese (15 million), Bengal in 43 (3 million), North Korea and Ethiopia (a million each), and in the 20th century we have about 72 million deaths.

But this is exactly my point. Those famines were the result of bad economic and social management - not a result of an absolute failure and inability to produce food.

Let's be clear on what the Malthusians argue: food scarcity is a product of the natural limitations facing human beings. They say that, no matter how society is organised, eventually global population growth will outstrip global food production.

This has never materialised. Human hunger has social and economic causes (as Marxists argue), not natural causes (as Malthusians argue).


Unfortunately it has. I can think of a few well-documented examples, such as the American southwest, Easter Island, Rwanda, European settlements in Greenland, and perhaps Ireland. Not to mention the massive loss in agricultural productivity in the middle east following the population booms 4 thousand years ago.

Mankind is producing more food today than ever before. This is an empirical fact. While some parts of the world experienced some decline in recent decades (parts of sub-Saharan Africa and parts of post-1989 eastern Europe), overall, human beings can expect better access to food today than at any other time in history.

This is not just the case in rich countries. In actual fact, the most progress has been made in developing countries. On average, people in the developing world consume around 40% more calories now than they did a century ago. The percentage of people facing starvation has also fallen since a century ago - quite radically. And, as we all know, world life expectancy today is more than double what it was at the beginning of the 20th century, while world child mortality rates have never been lower.

And, all this time, the human population has soared, from around 1.6 billion in 1900, to around 6.5 billion today. So much for population growth and living standards having an inverse relationship...

[Lynx]

So comrade, has your original question been answered?

I don't understand this fixation on Malthus. The production of food depends on dual energy input (from the sun and from technology). The portion that is required for technology is but a fraction of world energy production.

Creating a society based on material equality will involve dividing world energy production by the population to be served. This calculation has little to do with prediction and everything to do with reality. Technological efficiency and load factors will determine what standard of living can be sustained for everyone.

[Vanguard1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 05:23 pm
I don't understand this fixation on Malthus.

Malthusian logic - which made a comeback in recent decades - is widely accepted. World governments, international organisations and various social movements (especially the green movement) all accept Malthusian assumptions about population growth.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+November 02, 2007 01:31 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ November 02, 2007 01:31 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 05:23 pm
I don't understand this fixation on Malthus.

Malthusian logic - which made a comeback in recent decades - is widely accepted. World governments, international organisations and various social movements (especially the green movement) all accept Malthusian assumptions about population growth. [/b]
That is the most depressing thing I have read so far (on revleft).

Good luck and good night :mellow:

[MarxSchmarx]

Vanguard:

I agree totally that there have been enormous improvements world-wide in agricultural productivity.

But.

Surely there must be a limit to the improvement in food production. Otherwise we could generate as much grain as is grown in Ukraine in a flower pot.

Would you agree on this point? If not, please explain.

[Vanguard1917]

Surely there must be a limit to the improvement in food production.

No, i don't agree that we need to accept any long-term limitations, simply because we don't know what technological advancements and discoveries will be made in the future.

Who could have imagined, a hundred years ago, the kinds of advances that were made in agricultural production in the 20th century?


Otherwise we could generate as much grain as is grown in Ukraine in a flower pot.

Yes, why not? :)

[MarxSchmarx]

No, i don't agree that we need to accept any long-term limitations, simply because we don't know what technological advancements and discoveries will be made in the future.

Well, I certainly admire your consistency.

If one accepts there are absolutely no limits to the food supply (or living space, or whatever resource), then you are correct; the Malthusian argument does not hold.





Otherwise we could generate as much grain as is grown in Ukraine in a flower pot.

Yes, why not?


There is one way to salvage the Malthusian argument. That is, if the rate of population growth out-surpasses the rate of resource expansion, then the Malthusian argument will still hold even if there is an infinite resource base.

Suppose it was in fact possible to grow as much wheat as is currently grown in the Ukraine in a single flower pot. All else being equal, which do you think is the better policy? Expend enormous resources we will undoubtedly require to accomplish this (admittedly unfathomable) agronomical marvel, much less in any reasonable time-frame, or promote birth control and other policies designed to limit global over-population?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:20 pm
That is what the Malthusians argue. For them, the earth has a fixed amount of resources, and thus the main variable in the equation is the size of the human population. Therefore, any problem (war, disease, hunger, environmental degradation, etc.) can only be made worse by adding more human beings to the equation. Just look at the population policies of the neo-Malthusians in environmental groups and international organisations like the UN. They're all based on the understanding that a reduction in human numbers is needed to solve the world's problems.
The Earth has a fixed mass and receives a fixed amount of energy from the Sun. Therefore, the total amount of resources on Earth is limited. Even if we postulate that there are no limits to human creative genius, sooner or later we will run into the unflinching wall of the laws of physics. Just as there is a limit to how much data we could possibly pack into a computer of a fixed size - because eventually we run into the size limit imposed by atoms and molecules - so there is a limit to how many people we could possibly support using the Earth's mass and available energy.

Unless of course you wish to argue that one day we will discover how to create matter out of nothing.

My point is that, in principle, you are wrong and Malthus is right. But, in practice, we are far enough from the resource limit that it might not matter for a very long time.

[Vanguard1917]

The Earth has a fixed mass and receives a fixed amount of energy from the Sun. Therefore, the total amount of resources on Earth is limited. Even if we postulate that there are no limits to human creative genius, sooner or later we will run into the unflinching wall of the laws of physics. Just as there is a limit to how much data we could possibly pack into a computer of a fixed size - because eventually we run into the size limit imposed by atoms and molecules - so there is a limit to how many people we could possibly support using the Earth's mass and available energy.

I addressed such arguments here:

Also, you talk of resources as though they're a pre-given, fixed quantity outside of human beings. This is characteristic of Malthusian logic: Malthusians see the earth's resources as fixed and population as the key variable. Therefore, according to this view, more people must mean a greater drain on resources.

In reality, of course, that is rubbish: we can't talk of 'resources' as though they are a pre-given, fixed quantity that exist outside of human beings. Resources acquire meaning through human society, which is subject to historical development. For example, for the majority of societies throughout history, uranium and bauxite weren't considered resources. They became resources at a certain stage of historical and technological development. On the other hand, coal, which was considered a highly valuable resource in the past, is less and less considered as such today. The oceans were seens as an obstacle by early human societies; today, as a result of historical development, they're seen less as a problem and more as a resource.

So there's a fluid relationship between human beings and resources - not a fixed relationships as the Malthusians argue. As Marx pointed out, problems like poverty and hunger are caused by the way society is organised, not by the limits of nature on population.


Malthus is right

If there isn't any evidence that Malthus is right, and tons of evidence to the contrary of what Malthus predicted, then Malthus is not right.


My point is that, in principle, you are wrong and Malthus is right. But, in practice, we are far enough from the resource limit that it might not matter for a very long time.

Do you have some kind of crystal ball which lets you look into the future? What makes you think that there is a long-term, pre-given 'resource limit' of which we already know today?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+November 05, 2007 06:26 pm--> (Vanguard1917 @ November 05, 2007 06:26 pm) Also, you talk of resources as though they're a pre-given, fixed quantity outside of human beings.

[/b]
The mass of the Earth, which is an absolute physical limit on the resources we could use without expanding to other planets, is a pre-given, fixed quantity outside of human beings.


Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)In reality, of course, that is rubbish: we can't talk of 'resources' as though they are a pre-given, fixed quantity that exist outside of human beings. Resources acquire meaning through human society, which is subject to historical development. For example, for the majority of societies throughout history, uranium and bauxite weren't considered resources. They became resources at a certain stage of historical and technological development.[/b]
Yes and no. Historical and technological development may be able to turn uranium and bauxite to productive use, but it cannot create uranium and bauxite where none existed before. Resources acquire meaning through human society, but they are not created by human society. You speak almost as if we could simply conjure new resources into existence through sheer force of will. We cannot. Our creativity allows us to discover new uses for naturally occurring substances, but the universe offers no guarantee to always provide us with all the naturally occurring substances we desire.

In other words, humans do not invent resources; we discover them. There is an important difference.

You also appear to imply that human creativity can ultimately solve all conceivable problems; which leads to the conclusion that humans can eventually find a way to do anything they want to do; which means that humans are, in the long run, omnipotent. That is an absurd position to hold. There is such a thing as an unsolvable problem, and we can only hope that we'll never run into one of those.


[email protected]
As Marx pointed out, problems like poverty and hunger are caused by the way society is organised, not by the limits of nature on population.
Currently, yes, that is true. Our current technology is sufficient to produce enough food from the arable land surface of the Earth to feed everyone who is alive today. World hunger (and poverty) is caused entirely by the way society is organized.

But there is no reason to believe that society can grow indefinitely and we will just keep finding more and more effective ways to produce food. Population is growing exponentially; technology is also improving exponentially. For the moment, technology is improving fast enough to keep up with population. But I argue that it is dangerous and irresponsible to simply assume that this will go on forever. Consider the risks we face if it doesn't.


Vanguard1917
Do you have some kind of crystal ball which lets you look into the future? What makes you think that there is a long-term, pre-given 'resource limit' of which we already know today?
You are the one who is making the claim that present trends can and will continue forever. Therefore you are the one acting as if he has a crystal ball.

I am merely raising the possibility that present trends in technological development may not continue forever.

[Vanguard1917]

The mass of the Earth, which is an absolute physical limit on the resources we could use without expanding to other planets, is a pre-given, fixed quantity outside of human beings.

But, like i said, resources acquire meaning through human society. That's why it's flawed to talk of resources as though they exist outside human society.

If resources are viewed in the Malthusian way - i.e. there's a fixed amount of resources on earth, and more humans must therefore mean a greater pressure on resources - we reach the logical conclusion that there's a negative relationship between human population and the earth resources. But, as historical evidence shows, this is not the case. This is precisely because resources acquire meaning through human society, which is subject to historical development.


You also appear to imply that human creativity can ultimately solve all conceivable problems; which leads to the conclusion that humans can eventually find a way to do anything they want to do; which means that humans are, in the long run, omnipotent. That is an absurd position to hold. There is such a thing as an unsolvable problem, and we can only hope that we'll never run into one of those.

But we have had problems which we may have thought unsolvable. Early humans saw the oceans as an obstacle. But, through technological development, the oceans became seen more as a resource than an obstacle. (And this is an ongoing process. In fact, we could exploit the oceans' recources far better with technology of which we already know today.) Who could have imagined - just a mere couple of centuries ago - that millions of people a day would use the air as a means of travelling around the world, or that hundreds of thousands of animals a day could be slaughtered in a single factory farm, thus making meat less and less scarce every year?

In other words, we simply do not know the developments that will take place in the future. What we do know, though, is that human beings are extremely good at overcoming limitations. Of course, human progress is being held back by an economic system which is restraining economic and technological development - i.e. capitalism. We need to get rid of these restraints by smashing capitalism and establishing an economic system which unleashes humanity's productive potential. Today's Malthusians fear this prospect.

[Demogorgon]

Well one might point out that given that environmentalists will be fast to point out that some parts of Earth are over populated, and given that it is also fact that large parts of earth remain underpopulated to the extent we can not tap all the resources there that could benefit people and stop the problems of over population, any environmentalsit would have to admit that encouraging immigration is the bloody obvious solution tot he problem.

****s like David Cameron will come up with various ridiculous statements all designed to promote the same racist agenda, but anyone with enough brain cells to form a synapse would see that immigration has nothing to do with over population as it does not increase the number of people on the planet and further immigrant usually move (as a whole) from over populated areas to under populated areas.

[Lynx]

Why not explore the relationship between immigration controls and the disparity of wealth between nations?

Or the relationship between population growth and poverty?

[Genosse Kotze]

The Malthusian model for population growth--dP/dt = kP(t) where dP/dt is the rate at which the population grows, P(t) is the population at time t, and k is a constant of proportionality-- only holds in very specific scenarios. For instance, the way interest in the bank gets compounded, as well as radioactive decay, can be described using this equation. It only works as an acurate model for population growth only when that population is very small (like bacteria growing in a petre dish). And, yes, Malthus was a bit of an alarmist about this, as this equation predicts that population will increase without bound. Luckily he was totally wrong in applying it to our society.

A better way to more acuratly describe the rate at which human populations grow is what is known as the logistic equation. Now, I don't think anybody here is saying that the human population can just keep growing for ever and ever, because in this model for population growth is bounded as time goes to infinity. What causes this really does depend on what kind of population you're looking at, but for the purposes of this discusion limited resources, over crowding, pollution etc. certainly plays its part.

Now, this dude was saying something about how "resources aquire meaning through human society" and to some extent I see his point (about uranium being nothing special a century ago, versus what it is today) but some resources will always "have meaning" (are mother fucking essential!). Water being first and foremost. Well, we can't just guzzle it all cuz there's only so much of it on Earth. When we run out, I'd imagine it would have a bit of a limiting effect on population growth, no? And nobody start with the whole space colonization routine. If you're interested in Captain Kirk Communism, then this website may be right up your alley: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/