Laphroaig, Thanks for the effort. You made the point that economists think urbanization leads to innovation and progress. That's not the issue, though, is it? The issue, as I see it, is whether man and his environment are better off with unconstrained population growth. The carrying capacity of the earth is finite. As we approach that carrying capacity the quality of life will be reduced. Not good for my kids and future grand-kids. Now. I've responded in a serious and collegial manner despite your rudeness. No more. Our discussion is over. Oh! One last thing. I like Landsburg. I've read both his popular books. Dewspite being an economist he's worth reading.
De-population bomb? LOL. Rarely has anything so silly been expressed in print. Yes, we could find ways to squeeze nearly limitless numbers of humans into small spaces, but at what cost to the quality of life of those people? More people at this point is only beneficial if you ignore everything but expanding economic markets. If you consider humans nothing but economic robots, provided for your business to harvest, then more a never ending increase is a good thing. Like global warming, selecting one or two failed predictions of a very complex and adaptable subject does not dismiss Erlich's thesis as nonsense. He makes many good points. I am extremely happy people with science backgrounds are now running government programs under Obama, instead of the religious ideologues filling those positions under Bush. It will take some time to get the agencies back to protecting the envioronment, the endangered species, the food products, and the parks they were set up to protect, but fortuneately, this is happening now.
Yes, we can innovate ways to crowd even more automatons into small spaces. There's always Soylent Green to eat, I suppose.
So on one hand you have a fairly consistent track record of science improving agricultural yields and energy extraction far beyond what people ever thought possible. On the other hand you have a pack of henny-penny, factless hand wringers that have look foolish and off base any and every time it has tried to go on record. Tough choice on what to believe in this debate.
Erlich was just wrong in the details? Like maybe his claim that: "In the 1970's and 1980's . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also stated, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980," and "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." Concluding that: "(We need) compulsory birth regulation... (through) the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size".
He was wrong in the details, Battleship. And unwise in making such explicit predictions. He was right in writing that human populations are growing at rates that will significantly reduce the quality of life for mankind. We can see the effects of over-population today. Dramatic drops in aquifer levels, fishery collapses, biodiversity losses, local famines, and massive pollution are all evidence of the increased pressure man is putting on his environment. The Population Bomb was a poorly written, ill-conceived book, but the danger it was written in response too was, and is, very real.
The idea that the concentration of wealth and ideas in cities is a powerful economic engine doesn't conflict with the idea that overpopulation is an extremely negative force. A city is not simply an urban area, but the entire geographic region required to support it. In a very real sense, the oil fields of Al Gawahr are a part of NYC, and the city will die when they dry up. That is, unless it becomes possible to use renewable energy to power that place (to say nothing of the agricultural land that supports it and is equally dependent upon oil). Population*BTUs/Person=energy demand. The current number will never be met with sustainable sources, so population and energy demand must go down. Cities are great for reducing energy demand per person (a person living in Manhattan consumes a fraction of the energy of someone in Houston), but the population factor can still be so large as to overcome the great efficiency. On the whole, I would argue that urban living and a fall in population are both extremely powerful goals. Finally, food for thought: the article doesn't seem to mention computers, despite the fact that there is no more powerful force in driving increased generation of intellectual capital.
Fact: humanity is wealthier, healthier, and more well fed by a significant amount over that 40 year time span.
If Lee Corso predicts that Wyoming will beat Texas by 30, and Texas beats Wyoming by 50, how many posters will respond that, "Corso had some good ideas, but was just a little off on the details"?
Someone quoted that we can always eat suylent green, that's awesome on so many levels. They actually tried to us a movie, created bc of these nammering nabobs, about an evil that never happened in direct contradiction to the premis and underlying basis of the movie. Just a spetacular fail moment all the way around. I think some of the ehlrich defenders would be willing to bet usc over texas in the 06 rosebowl today. Data points are apparently meaningless. I'm sure that in the future if global warming is a problem and not simply the chicken little alarmism of the day (hello acid rain, global cooling, the hole in the ozone are all going to kill us etc) that man will find a way around it. I'm sure that we will find some efficient and cheap way to desalt the seas, or burn waste into energy, or colonize other star systems or something completely new and unique I didn't mention. And these solutions will disprove the nattering nabobs of negativity bleating away about how we are all going to die today. Its funny how science deniers like lap (or me) have so much more faith in mankind (and sciences) innovative powers then those that seemingly worship at the alter of the bunson burner. What the f**k do I know, I'm only conversant in history and economics and other disciplines of the so called lesser sciences. What little I do know is to analyze the past, look at trends, data points and apply reason and then reach a logical conclusion. I suppose its possible there could be no more inventions or innovations to improve our situation. Possible. But it would buck the entire trend of recorded human history. I'm going to bet on 7000 years or so of recorded history but then again maybe this time chicken little is right. I think I know where vegas would set that line though. Innovation -7000. Chicken little +10000.
Forget 25 years. Look at all of human history. Innovation happens when smart people are faced with the necessity of fixing an moortant problem.
