Who the hell is an immigrant?

[Slargos]

That quip aside, I think the basic foundation of Malthus' argument is self-evident even if some of the conclusions he draws are erroneous.

No, because the foundation of his argument is that population grows exponentially and resource production grows linearly.  He failed to understand what the Industrial Revolution was doing to the production of resources and goods.  Not his fault; he had inadequate data.

Ditto for Ricardo.

The writings of these two created the motivations behind most social thinking of the Nineteenth century, though, so I can see why the Nineteenth Century Sweden of today would still teach this stuff as though it were accurate.

The industrial revolution and subsequent technological progress only delays the problem, they don't make it go away.

[The Brain]

The dotcom revolution will pick up the slack.

[Slargos]

The dotcom revolution will pick up the slack.

By transferring our consciousness into a machine you say? Thus taking food production out of the equation, and focusing on powerproduction which would be functionally limitless? An interesting vision. 

Timmay, your thoughts please?

[Ancient Demon]

Regarding pre-industrial societies, Malthus was absolutely correct. For post-industrial societies, it is not the increased production which makes the theory untrue (indeed it would just delay the problem), rather the cultural changes that let to more people voluntarily limiting the size of their families.

[Barrister]

Regarding pre-industrial societies, Malthus was absolutely correct. For post-industrial societies, it is not the increased production which makes the theory untrue (indeed it would just delay the problem), rather the cultural changes that let to more people voluntarily limiting the size of their families.

It wasn't even so much the cultural changes, as the medical/pharmacological changes that easily allowed people to voluntarily limit the size of their families.

[Slargos]

Regarding pre-industrial societies, Malthus was absolutely correct. For post-industrial societies, it is not the increased production which makes the theory untrue (indeed it would just delay the problem), rather the cultural changes that let to more people voluntarily limiting the size of their families.

I've already stated as much. Social and technological evolution has averted the problem for now. However, this social progress has not taken place in the second and third world, and it has certainly not taken place in a vacuum. It relies on resource extraction from outside the West and Western economies as they look today will certainly not be able to survive the evolution of overcrowded third world countries into first world.

Regardless, as long as you have population growth, you're eventually going to run into the wall. Unless of course the wall can be moved.

[grumbler]

Regarding pre-industrial societies, Malthus was absolutely correct. For post-industrial societies, it is not the increased production which makes the theory untrue (indeed it would just delay the problem), rather the cultural changes that let to more people voluntarily limiting the size of their families.

It wasn't even so much the cultural changes, as the medical/pharmacological changes that easily allowed people to voluntarily limit the size of their families.

It wasn't even the medical/pharmacological changes that easily allowed people to voluntarily limit the size of their families as it was the cultural changes that made them want to do so.  Specifically, the education of women.

[Josquius]

On topic: Jus soli FTW.
Or the Swedes can get the fuck out of Norrland and go back to Skåne.
Or hell, Russia, or wherever it is the indo-europeans originally come from.

The industrial revolution and subsequent technological progress only delays the problem, they don't make it go away.

So they said. In the early 20th century worries about over population and starvation were growing again....cue: the green revolution.
Then in the 70s and 80s once again there were worries about over population and food shortages, as shown in some scifi of the time like soylent green. The veggie food-crap Quorn was developed at great expense during this period in order to provide cheap plentiful protein to the starving millions at the turn of the millenium....except of course that never happened, again we managed to get our production levels up.
It just keeps happening. People worry and we overcome the problems. With population predicted to level off and decline this century I don't see Malthus ever being proven right.

[HVC]

Food shouldn't be an issue until we run out of cheap fertilizer sources... which i don't know when that is

[The Minsky Moment]

Regarding pre-industrial societies, Malthus was absolutely correct.

That is not really so either, which is why certain pre-industrial societies were able to achieve average levels of affluence well above subsistence.

[The Brain]

People worry a lot about the smallest things. They easily forget that just 70 years ago we were fighting a huge war to protect our way of life against blood-crazed regimes that were anathema to any decent human being. The death toll ran into the tens of millions. And we lost!

[HVC]

[Razgovory]

Regarding pre-industrial societies, Malthus was absolutely correct. For post-industrial societies, it is not the increased production which makes the theory untrue (indeed it would just delay the problem), rather the cultural changes that let to more people voluntarily limiting the size of their families.

Actually, he was incorrect.  The two major population declines in the West were not caused by Malthusian catastrophe but by plague.  Severe famine did break out in the 14th century, but did not cause the population to decline greatly.  Major declines in population may have occurred in other parts of the world for reasons stated by Malthus, but I don't really know much about their history so I can't say.

[Malthus]

I just can't catch a break with this crowd. 

[PDH]

Malthus sucks!  Pass it on!