Cafe Hayek: Tierney, Simon, and 300 Million Resources
k hagen
· 3 years ago
"Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards.
"I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse."
Brilliant! It's the unfounded belief that things are going to hell, and that we have so do something about it — now!—, that has brought us the many and varied hells we have now on earth. If there's anything to worry about it's the doomsayers getting control.
Praise be the ultimate resource!
Russell Nelson
· 3 years ago
Uhhhh, actually, Julian got that backwards. He should have speculated on the state of society, and been certain that pessimists would still be loud about their pessimism in spite of all facts. Of the pair of them, the latter is far more certain.
William Tanksley
· 3 years ago
The end of this essay referred to the gloom'n'doomers as "Malthusian". From what I've read (I haven't read Mathus' works, but I've read much of Mises, who cited him frequently), Malthus was more of a classical economist, and believed that human behavior would adjust itself to the restrictions, thus preventing a breakdown.
Was Mises taking Malthus out of context? Or perhaps should the adjective be "Ehrlichian" ("the population bomb") rather than "Malthusian"?
-Billy
John Thacker
· 3 years ago
So, Thomas Malthus believed that periodic shortages and adjustments were an historical inevitability. Basically, he thought that population would inevitably outstrip the growth in food supply, resulting in necessary adjustments. He thought basically that it was more humane for the poor to voluntarily limit their population growth rather than have it limited for them by events. He focused on the poor because he felt that they would suffer from the deprivations anyway (and since the rich, even in his time, were known for having fewer children.)
Of course, his thoughts quickly became used for other purposes, including coercive ones.
The "Malthusian" reference usually refers to his assumption that population growth would increase geometricaly whereas food production only arithmetically. The coercive policy suggestions did not come from him, though.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
· 3 years ago
The Earth's human population cannot grow without limit, therefore it will not grow without limit. Either population ceases to grow when (1) the death rate rises to meet the birth rate or when (2) the birth rate falls to meet the death rate. Either 1 or 2 happens due to (a) deliberate human agency or due to (b) non-human agency. Voluntary programs for population control selectively breed non-compliant individuals. Therefore, if deliberate human agency causes the birth rate to fall to meet the death rate, this human agency will be enforced. This enforement will be (x) democratically agreed-upon or (y) imposed without consent.
Where do you disagree?
Which do you prefer? You have six choices. Seven if you count "bury my head in the sand" as a choice (that's (1,a,y) or (2,b) by default).
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
· 3 years ago
Sorry. (2,a,y) or (1,b) by default.
Joseph Hertzlinger
· 3 years ago
If there actually is a limit (and we ignore the existence of the rest of the universe), we can expect rents to increase as the population nears the limit. When rents are higher, birth rates decline.
Kevin
· 3 years ago
Malcolm,
Let the market figure out Earth's ideal population. Any coercive enforcement would be much less efficient.
And just because enforcement is democratically agreed upon does not necessarily imply consent. x and/or y
All Comments
"Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today's Western living standards.
"I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse."
Brilliant! It's the unfounded belief that things are going to hell, and that we have so do something about it — now!—, that has brought us the many and varied hells we have now on earth. If there's anything to worry about it's the doomsayers getting control.
Praise be the ultimate resource!
Uhhhh, actually, Julian got that backwards. He should have speculated on the state of society, and been certain that pessimists would still be loud about their pessimism in spite of all facts. Of the pair of them, the latter is far more certain.
The end of this essay referred to the gloom'n'doomers as "Malthusian". From what I've read (I haven't read Mathus' works, but I've read much of Mises, who cited him frequently), Malthus was more of a classical economist, and believed that human behavior would adjust itself to the restrictions, thus preventing a breakdown.
Was Mises taking Malthus out of context? Or perhaps should the adjective be "Ehrlichian" ("the population bomb") rather than "Malthusian"?
-Billy
So, Thomas Malthus believed that periodic shortages and adjustments were an historical inevitability. Basically, he thought that population would inevitably outstrip the growth in food supply, resulting in necessary adjustments. He thought basically that it was more humane for the poor to voluntarily limit their population growth rather than have it limited for them by events. He focused on the poor because he felt that they would suffer from the deprivations anyway (and since the rich, even in his time, were known for having fewer children.)
Of course, his thoughts quickly became used for other purposes, including coercive ones.
The "Malthusian" reference usually refers to his assumption that population growth would increase geometricaly whereas food production only arithmetically. The coercive policy suggestions did not come from him, though.
The Earth's human population cannot grow without limit, therefore it will not grow without limit. Either population ceases to grow when (1) the death rate rises to meet the birth rate or when (2) the birth rate falls to meet the death rate. Either 1 or 2 happens due to (a) deliberate human agency or due to (b) non-human agency. Voluntary programs for population control selectively breed non-compliant individuals. Therefore, if deliberate human agency causes the birth rate to fall to meet the death rate, this human agency will be enforced. This enforement will be (x) democratically agreed-upon or (y) imposed without consent.
Where do you disagree?
Which do you prefer? You have six choices. Seven if you count "bury my head in the sand" as a choice (that's (1,a,y) or (2,b) by default).
Sorry. (2,a,y) or (1,b) by default.
If there actually is a limit (and we ignore the existence of the rest of the universe), we can expect rents to increase as the population nears the limit. When rents are higher, birth rates decline.
Malcolm,
Let the market figure out Earth's ideal population. Any coercive enforcement would be much less efficient.
And just because enforcement is democratically agreed upon does not necessarily imply consent. x and/or y