Who the hell is an immigrant?

[Jacob]

Malthus sucks!  Pass it on!

Is he good, and how much does he charge?

I'm asking for a friend.

[katmai]

dguller can ask for himself!

[Monoriu]

When I was in high school back in the early 90s, they taught Malthusian theory as if it were gospel. 

[Valmy]

When I was in high school back in the early 90s, they taught Malthusian theory as if it were gospel. 

To justify the one-child law?  Of course you were in Hong Kong so that doesn't make sense...

[Monoriu]

When I was in high school back in the early 90s, they taught Malthusian theory as if it were gospel. 

To justify the one-child law?  Of course you were in Hong Kong so that doesn't make sense...

No one child law in HK.  It is just bureaucratic inertia 

[Pat]

Malthus isn't iron-bound law, of course. But if you read a book like Jared Diamond's "Collapse", for example, where he goes through the collapses of several different civilizations, you'll see Malthus was not entirely wrong either (of course he doesn't explicitly state that his approach to the topic is a malthusian one but if you read it it will become evident).

BTW I don't think I ever encountered Malthus in Swedish schools (except possibly in relation to Dickens or in similar negative light) so they hardly teach Malthus as gospel. Swedish schools do however teach you to think for yourself. There is of course gospel but the lutheran heritage of personally reading it and making up your own mind about it is still live and well.

I suppose Americans can be forgiven for not understanding Malthus, however, considering their history is one of nearly unlimited land rand and resources there for the taking for those with pioneer spirit (and I suppose they must also be forgiven, in a sense, for still seeing the whole world this way - forgiven, but still opposed).

[Habbaku]

Malthus was not entirely wrong either

What was Malthus not entirely wrong about, in your interpretation?

[Pat]

I think Slargos said it well: "...as long as you have population growth, you're eventually going to run into the wall. Unless of course the wall can be moved."

[Slargos]

BTW I don't think I ever encountered Malthus in Swedish schools (except possibly in relation to Dickens or in similar negative light) so they hardly teach Malthus as gospel. Swedish schools do however teach you to think for yourself. There is of course gospel but the lutheran heritage of personally reading it and making up your own mind about it is still live and well.

[DGuller]

dguller can ask for himself!

Is Malthus the most powerful man in the world?  I have standards, you know?

[DGuller]

I think Slargos said it well: "...as long as you have population growth, you're eventually going to run into the wall. Unless of course the wall can be moved."

That's how I understand it as well.  It's not that Malthus was wrong, it's just that Malthus had his prediction delayed by technological explosion.  I for one do not believe that the rapid technological expansion can be sustained.  I think we're just in the middle of the quantum leap in technology, and that quantum leap is all the last few generations have known, but at some point it's going to peter out.  At that point, Malthus may again become relevant.

[Pat]

Well we have contraceptives and various means of birth control now and birth rates are plummeting as nations become rich.

[DGuller]

Well we have contraceptives and various means of birth control now and birth rates are plummeting as nations become rich.

Yes, that could be the second major game changer.  Once humans reproduce at rates below replacement, new dynamics enter the picture.  Of course, this isn't sustainable either literally by definition; we can't procreate below the replacement rate forever.

[Pat]

LOL now grumbler is going to say contraceptives existed in ancient Egypt to say I'm wrong.

[Slargos]

Well we have contraceptives and various means of birth control now and birth rates are plummeting as nations become rich.

Yes, that could be the second major game changer.  Once humans reproduce at rates below replacement, new dynamics enter the picture.  Of course, this isn't sustainable either literally by definition; we can't procreate below the replacement rate forever.

Which is frankly the beauty of the model. Unless we come up with some sort of Deus ex machina solution, we are inevitably headed towards some sort of Demographic Catastrophe, whether it's breeding to the point of starvation like the subsaharans or developing a society that has more elderly than it can afford to support, which is currently happening in Europe and Japan.

Robotics and immigration (for the sake of internal consistency, immigration more so than robotics, since the filthy immigrants are another drain rather than boon) are stopgap solutions.