http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt-pJLp32pM
Unfortunately only for our scandie-speaking public.
A hilarious piece, highlighting the gross hypocrisy in the immigration debate. :D
Executive summary? I don't want to get Nazi recommendations from Youtube the next 6 months.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8riEZ6ekH2U
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 08:49:22 AM
Executive summary? I don't want to get Nazi recommendations from Youtube the next 6 months.
Yeah, I clicked on Lettow's Youtube thing and now it gives me recommendations for Cosplay and other anime bullshit.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 08:59:00 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 08:49:22 AM
Executive summary? I don't want to get Nazi recommendations from Youtube the next 6 months.
Yeah, I clicked on Lettow's Youtube thing and now it gives me recommendations for Cosplay and other anime bullshit.
Lettow'ed. :weep:
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 08:49:22 AM
Executive summary? I don't want to get Nazi recommendations from Youtube the next 6 months.
It ridicules the entire "Everyone who lives in Sweden is Swedish" by, in a humorous manner, playing clips where politicians, journalists and various "anti-racists" themselves betray these distinctions that do not exist in the way they speak.
So?
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 09:01:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 08:49:22 AM
Executive summary? I don't want to get Nazi recommendations from Youtube the next 6 months.
It ridicules the entire "Everyone who lives in Sweden is Swedish" by, in a humorous manner, playing clips where politicians, journalists and various "anti-racists" themselves betray these distinctions that do not exist in the way they speak.
I thought the official line was "everyone who lives in Sweden is an immigrant"?
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 09:04:12 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 09:01:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 08:49:22 AM
Executive summary? I don't want to get Nazi recommendations from Youtube the next 6 months.
It ridicules the entire "Everyone who lives in Sweden is Swedish" by, in a humorous manner, playing clips where politicians, journalists and various "anti-racists" themselves betray these distinctions that do not exist in the way they speak.
I thought the official line was "everyone who lives in Sweden is an immigrant"?
I don't think the official line has ever been very consistent.
But regardless, it plays on that as well.
Still don't have the balls to click it anyway, so it's a moot point.
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 09:07:21 AM
Still don't have the balls to click it anyway, so it's a moot point.
:lol:
I assure you, it's harmless. Yes, there are Swastikas in it, but they're used for comedic effect. Regardless, I didn't get any recommendations to nazi vids though I did get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5P9BZvXmLE
Which is apparently some sort of Arab polka with guns. IDK. :hmm:
It just seems odd that a people who a few generations ago flocked to my country to escape the poverty and famine that result in their incompetent self rule would be bothered by immigrants coming to their country for the same reason. If anything, the Muslim would likely run it better. After all, they managed to keep an empire for longer then the Swedes did.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:17:34 AM
It just seems odd that a people who a few generations ago flocked to my country to escape the poverty and famine that result in their incompetent self rule would be bothered by immigrants coming to their country for the same reason. If anything, the Muslim would likely run it better. After all, they managed to keep an empire for longer then the Swedes did.
:facepalm:
History understanding fail, read some Malthus (not the poster).
Anyway I thought it was pretty good, though of course it knocks down open doors.
Quote from: Pat on April 27, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:17:34 AM
It just seems odd that a people who a few generations ago flocked to my country to escape the poverty and famine that result in their incompetent self rule would be bothered by immigrants coming to their country for the same reason. If anything, the Muslim would likely run it better. After all, they managed to keep an empire for longer then the Swedes did.
:facepalm:
History understanding fail, read some Malthus (not the poster).
Anyway I thought it was pretty good, though of course it knocks down open doors.
In that the vast majority of the people who will view it already understand the message? Yes.
I thought it was delivered in a very clever fashion, however, and largely unassailable by the usual criticism.
Quote from: Pat on April 27, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:17:34 AM
It just seems odd that a people who a few generations ago flocked to my country to escape the poverty and famine that result in their incompetent self rule would be bothered by immigrants coming to their country for the same reason. If anything, the Muslim would likely run it better. After all, they managed to keep an empire for longer then the Swedes did.
:facepalm:
History understanding fail, read some Malthus (not the poster).
Anyway I thought it was pretty good, though of course it knocks down open doors.
I think the poster Malthus is more enlightening to then the theorist who's catastrophe never managed to occur.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 27, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:17:34 AM
It just seems odd that a people who a few generations ago flocked to my country to escape the poverty and famine that result in their incompetent self rule would be bothered by immigrants coming to their country for the same reason. If anything, the Muslim would likely run it better. After all, they managed to keep an empire for longer then the Swedes did.
:facepalm:
History understanding fail, read some Malthus (not the poster).
Anyway I thought it was pretty good, though of course it knocks down open doors.
I think the poster Malthus is more enlightening to then the theorist who's catastrophe never managed to occur.
... because his recommendations were largely inadvertently followed in the West.
If you look at the less civilized parts of the world, IE the Rest, that's a different story.
How many people are Not Starving solely on the basis of humanitarian aid?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 27, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:17:34 AM
It just seems odd that a people who a few generations ago flocked to my country to escape the poverty and famine that result in their incompetent self rule would be bothered by immigrants coming to their country for the same reason. If anything, the Muslim would likely run it better. After all, they managed to keep an empire for longer then the Swedes did.
:facepalm:
History understanding fail, read some Malthus (not the poster).
Anyway I thought it was pretty good, though of course it knocks down open doors.
I think the poster Malthus is more enlightening to then the theorist who's catastrophe never managed to occur.
Would've saved you from making that stupid argument.
So with current trends, how much longer until Sweden becomes less than 50% ethnic Swedes?
IIRC we have ~1 mill first or second generation immigrants out of 9 million people currently (a percentage exceeding that of the %.immigrants in the US at any time the last 100 years btw). Slargos will probably know the exact numbers.
edit:clarified
30-40% of people in Vienna were either born abroad or have a parent born abroad.
Of course it's always a question who's meant when people talk of "immigrants" and "foreigners".
West/North Europeans and white Americans hardly register as "foreigners" of public debate. People always laugh when I say that - here, in Austria - I'm a foreigner/immigrant.
Foreigners means (in roughly this order):
- Turks
- Ex-Yugos
- Other Arab-looking folks
- Romanians/gypsies
- Other Balkans folks
- Black Africans
- everyone else
Chinese/Indians aren't part of public debate, even though there's quite a few here.
Also, the biggest single-nation group of foreigners in Vienna are Germans, which is also rarely notices.
The biggest single group of immigrants in Sweden is the finns. :(
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 27, 2011, 09:37:33 AM
So with current trends, how much longer until Sweden becomes less than 50% ethnic Swedes?
Projections say between 2035-2050 with current trends holding, might well be much closer to the sooner than the latter, given the rate of increase of immigration.
But the official answer is "Who's really Swedish? There's no such thing as an ethnic Swede".
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 09:58:15 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 27, 2011, 09:37:33 AM
So with current trends, how much longer until Sweden becomes less than 50% ethnic Swedes?
Projections say between 2035-2050 with current trends holding, might well be much closer to the sooner than the latter, given the rate of increase of immigration.
I'd like to know how those numbers are calculated.
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 09:58:15 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on April 27, 2011, 09:37:33 AM
So with current trends, how much longer until Sweden becomes less than 50% ethnic Swedes?
Projections say between 2035-2050 with current trends holding, might well be much closer to the sooner than the latter, given the rate of increase of immigration.
How likely do you honestly consider that to become a reality?
Well majority British-descended Americans have long ceased to be a literal majority over here but we have successfullly gotten most of the people to adopt our way of life anyway. But that might just be because we are awesomer than Swedes.
Quote from: Pat on April 27, 2011, 09:29:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 27, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2011, 09:17:34 AM
It just seems odd that a people who a few generations ago flocked to my country to escape the poverty and famine that result in their incompetent self rule would be bothered by immigrants coming to their country for the same reason. If anything, the Muslim would likely run it better. After all, they managed to keep an empire for longer then the Swedes did.
:facepalm:
History understanding fail, read some Malthus (not the poster).
Anyway I thought it was pretty good, though of course it knocks down open doors.
I think the poster Malthus is more enlightening to then the theorist who's catastrophe never managed to occur.
Would've saved you from making that stupid argument.
Perhaps it would have caused me to Rape a POW as well. You stick to your ways, and I'll stick to mine.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2011, 10:21:40 AM
Well majority British-descended Americans have long ceased to be a literal majority over here but we have successfullly gotten most of the people to adopt our way of life anyway. But that might just be because we are awesomer than Swedes.
Retard American talks about things he doesn't know anything about, news at 11. What is your source for the majority of immigrants here not adopting our way of life? Slargos? Seriously, what the fuck do you know about this?
Quote from: Pat on April 27, 2011, 10:43:30 AM
Retard American talks about things he doesn't know anything about, news at 11. What is your source for the majority of immigrants here not adopting our way of life? Slargos? Seriously, what the fuck do you know about this?
I was kidding around. My central message is: probably nothing all that bad will happen. People have been talking gloom and doom about immigrants since the first Irish and German got off the boat. Ultimately everything has been fine. The basic Anglo-Saxon nature of Americans remains unchanged even if the actual number of Anglo-Saxons is pretty small now.
Ok sorry for calling you a retard (i dont really consider you one, nor do i most americans here). Had to go and writing on my phone, will answer you in full later.
I don't think the preponderance of Britishness in Americans is as low as surveys would indicate, for two reasons. One, the original immigrants frequently came here much longer ago and got forgotten. Two, people with mixed ethnic heritage(which is nearly all of us) are more likely to latch on to a "cool" ancestry like German or Irish.
I never thought of "German" as cool. I just say German because my last name is German.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2011, 11:01:22 AM
Two, people with mixed ethnic heritage(which is nearly all of us) are more likely to latch on to a "cool" ancestry like German or Irish.
I think it is usually because of their last name. Nobody named 'Smith' claims to be German.
Wow! :lol:
I cannot believe there is still a nation whose educational system thinks Thomas Malthus was right! Two (at least) of our Swedes have an epic history fail. So much for claims of Sweden being any kind of an advanced society!
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2011, 11:05:13 AM
I think it is usually because of their last name. Nobody named 'Smith' claims to be German.
Well, the most common last names in the US are all British in origin. Smith, Jones, Williams, Johnson, Brown, Davis, Miller, etc.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 11:05:57 AM
Wow! :lol:
I cannot believe there is still a nation whose educational system thinks Thomas Malthus was right! Two (at least) of our Swedes have an epic history fail. So much for claims of Sweden being any kind of an advanced society!
I find it very hard to argue with Malthus, and if you're going to be honest, so do probably you.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2011, 11:01:22 AM
I don't think the preponderance of Britishness in Americans is as low as surveys would indicate, for two reasons. One, the original immigrants frequently came here much longer ago and got forgotten. Two, people with mixed ethnic heritage(which is nearly all of us) are more likely to latch on to a "cool" ancestry like German or Irish.
But neither German nor Irish ancestry is cool.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2011, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2011, 11:05:13 AM
I think it is usually because of their last name. Nobody named 'Smith' claims to be German.
Well, the most common last names in the US are all British in origin. Smith, Jones, Williams, Johnson, Brown, Davis, Miller, etc.
Not just British but English. Looking at those lists I am actually pretty surprised at how English and Spanish last names dominate. Maybe Germans and Italians and Scots and Irish have alot more variety in their last names...or maybe it splits people who anglicized their names and ones who did not. One of the German families I am descended from are the Kepharts and there are literally no Kepharts anywhere in Germany except for one town in the Rhineland....called Kephart oddly enough.
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
I find it very hard to argue with Malthus, and if you're going to be honest, so do probably you.
True; dead men are even less articulate than Swedes.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2011, 11:17:11 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2011, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2011, 11:05:13 AM
I think it is usually because of their last name. Nobody named 'Smith' claims to be German.
Well, the most common last names in the US are all British in origin. Smith, Jones, Williams, Johnson, Brown, Davis, Miller, etc.
Not just British but English. Looking at those lists I am actually pretty surprised at how English and Spanish last names dominate. Maybe Germans and Italians and Scots and Irish have alot more variety in their last names...or maybe it splits people who anglicized their names and ones who did not. One of the German families I am descended from are the Kepharts and there are literally no Kepharts anywhere in Germany except for one town in the Rhineland....called Kephart oddly enough.
I know some of my family changed their name during WWI. It was something like Von Dreagi and they changed it to Dreager. I'm surprised the ones named "Hess" didn't change their names during WWII.
Quote from: Caliga on April 27, 2011, 11:22:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2011, 11:14:53 AM
But...German...ancestry is [not] cool.
:mad:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg545.imageshack.us%2Fimg545%2F4337%2Fgermans1900.jpg&hash=f99ac0ba0d42e86b604a416f1cf008020ffa055b) (http://img545.imageshack.us/i/germans1900.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
He's right.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 11:10:43 AM
I find it very hard to argue with Malthus, and if you're going to be honest, so do probably you.
True; dead men are even less articulate than Swedes.
:lol:
Well caught.
That quip aside, I think the basic foundation of Malthus' argument is self-evident even if some of the conclusions he draws are erroneous.
At any given level of technology, the theoretical capacity to produce food is finite and since ultimately all wealth is derived from the production of foodstuffs, wealth is also a finite resource which when stretched will mean those who have not will have their basic quality of life reduced as the population grows. This is averted by increasing the efficiency of the production but unless more resources or infinite efficiency in existing resources (where instead living space and power production will set the limit) can be developed there is a natural roof which when hit will produce the effects as described by Malthus.
It's not hard to see the results already in African nations.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2011, 11:17:11 AM
Not just British but English.
England and Wales have a lot of the same names. Probably because a lot of people didn't settle on surnames until after they were joined.
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 11:24:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2011, 10:21:40 AM
Well majority British-descended Americans have long ceased to be a literal majority over here
Is this relevant?
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2011, 12:03:56 PM
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 11:24:47 AM
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 dotcom revolution will pick up the slack.
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2011, 12:09:08 PM
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. :hmm:
Timmay, your thoughts please?
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.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2011, 12:55:28 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Slargos on April 27, 2011, 12:08:06 PM
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.
Food shouldn't be an issue until we run out of cheap fertilizer sources... which i don't know when that is :unsure:
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
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.
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!
:lol:
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 27, 2011, 12:43:05 PM
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.
I just can't catch a break with this crowd. :(
Malthus sucks! Pass it on!
Quote from: PDH on April 27, 2011, 07:02:48 PM
Malthus sucks! Pass it on!
Is he good, and how much does he charge?
I'm asking for a friend.
dguller can ask for himself!
When I was in high school back in the early 90s, they taught Malthusian theory as if it were gospel.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2011, 09:09:58 PM
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...
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2011, 10:10:20 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on April 27, 2011, 09:09:58 PM
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 :lol:
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).
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:15:53 AM
Malthus was not entirely wrong either
What was Malthus not entirely wrong about, in your interpretation?
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."
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:15:53 AM
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.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: katmai on April 27, 2011, 07:31:16 PM
dguller can ask for himself!
Is Malthus the most powerful man in the world? I have standards, you know?
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:23:14 AM
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.
Well we have contraceptives and various means of birth control now and birth rates are plummeting as nations become rich.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:51:22 AM
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.
LOL now grumbler is going to say contraceptives existed in ancient Egypt to say I'm wrong.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 01:54:41 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:51:22 AM
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.
Well I personally think we should welcome the fertility drops. We have too many people as it is now anyway and this a nice non-violent solution. Also: less people = less people to share the earth's resources = higher global standard of living and all else equal a nicer world.
edit: I know what you'll say so please note the birth rates have been dropping in the arab world as well :p
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 01:36:48 AM
I have standards, you know?
If you don't know, why would we?
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:15:53 AM
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).
:XD:
Care to elaborate?
In words?
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 05:29:17 AM
In words?
Probably something about the world and it's resources not being a pie of constant size that is divided between the remaining survivors.
The world is not of constant size? We can grow it bigger?
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 06:01:07 AM
The world is not of constant size? We can grow it bigger?
You haven't been watching
Fringe. There are alternate universes which if we can develop the technology properly, we can access and by exchanging useless mass like rock, mud or Americans we can steal their resources. They're just alternate-us-es and thus have no rights in this universe.
Well that would certainly change things, I suppose.
If we make the thefts small enough from every alternate dimension they will never catch on. This will propel our technological revolution into the solarsystem where we can harness asteroids to continue the dastardly work. Of course, this infinite source of resources may make us complacent and we will never colonize Alpha Centauri, thus risking a planet ending event to kill us all.
Quote from: Slargos on April 28, 2011, 06:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 06:01:07 AM
The world is not of constant size? We can grow it bigger?
You haven't been watching Fringe. There are alternate universes which if we can develop the technology properly, we can access and by exchanging useless mass like rock, mud or Americans we can steal their resources. They're just alternate-us-es and thus have no rights in this universe.
That's what Fringe is about? :huh:
I stopped after the first episode or two where it seemed to be a silly x-filesy show.
If we could access alternate worlds then why steal resources from ones that are like ours? Why not just go to the zillions of humanless worlds.
Anyway, its never going to happen, access to the multiverse would be the end of civilization.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:23:14 AM
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."
Except that this isn't what Malthus said at all. This is so trite that no one, I suspect, wants to claim it as their own.
I suppose Swedes can be forgiven for not understanding Malthus, however, considering their history is one of nearly unlimited peonage and the idea that resources there for the taking for those with the willingness to use forcel or the ability to collaborate with totalitarians (and I suppose they must also be forgiven, in a sense, for still seeing the whole world this way - forgiven, but still opposed).
Quote from: Tyr on April 28, 2011, 06:24:41 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 28, 2011, 06:08:23 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 06:01:07 AM
The world is not of constant size? We can grow it bigger?
You haven't been watching Fringe. There are alternate universes which if we can develop the technology properly, we can access and by exchanging useless mass like rock, mud or Americans we can steal their resources. They're just alternate-us-es and thus have no rights in this universe.
That's what Fringe is about? :huh:
I stopped after the first episode or two where it seemed to be a silly x-filesy show.
If we could access alternate worlds then why steal resources from ones that are like ours? Why not just go to the zillions of humanless worlds.
Anyway, its never going to happen, access to the multiverse would be the end of civilization.
No, it really isn't. But it could be.
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2011, 06:24:54 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:23:14 AM
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."
Except that this isn't what Malthus said at all. This is so trite that no one, I suspect, wants to claim it as their own.
I suppose Swedes can be forgiven for not understanding Malthus, however, considering their history is one of nearly unlimited peonage and the idea that resources there for the taking for those with the willingness to use forcel or the ability to collaborate with totalitarians (and I suppose they must also be forgiven, in a sense, for still seeing the whole world this way - forgiven, but still opposed).
:lmfao:
Coming from an American, this is so rich. Thanks for making my day. :hug:
Slargos' anti-American trolling is beginning to get tiresome. :yawn:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2011, 07:21:43 AM
Slargos' anti-American trolling is beginning to get tiresome. :yawn:
:lol:
Deposed any Saudi Arabian dictators lately? :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on April 28, 2011, 06:24:54 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 01:23:14 AM
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."
Except that this isn't what Malthus said at all. This is so trite that no one, I suspect, wants to claim it as their own.
OK but that's what I mean when I use the word "malthusian". We've had this discussion before. Do you have a better word for the same thing?
edit: It must be one word.
Quote from: Slargos on April 28, 2011, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2011, 07:21:43 AM
Slargos' anti-American trolling is beginning to get tiresome. :yawn:
:lol:
Deposed any Saudi Arabian dictators lately? :lol:
Why should we? They are our Romania. Delivering the sweet oil to their master.
Wasn't Romanians that burned the Reichstag so not sure if I follow the analogy.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 07:44:43 AM
OK but that's what I mean when I use the word "malthusian". We've had this discussion before. Do you have a better word for the same thing?
edit: It must be one word.
Bantradian. It is better because it can't be confused for another word with a different meaning, like your "malthusian" can be confused with the writings of Thomas Malthus.
What is the etymology?
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 08:06:43 AM
What is the etymology?
Quoteet·y·mol·o·gy (t-ml-j)
n. pl. et·y·mol·o·gies
1. The origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible.
2. The branch of linguistics that deals with etymologies.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/etymology
Not quite content with your answers, I must say.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 07:47:15 AM
Wasn't Romanians that burned the Reichstag so not sure if I follow the analogy.
Same as Saudi citizens were involved with September 11th! OMG! It is a perfect analogy!
Oh and Bush = Hitler.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 08:57:48 AM
Not quite content with your answers, I must say.
You are the guy making up meanings for existing words. How about we don't do that? If you want to have a word for "as long as you have population growth, you're eventually going to run into the wall, unless of course the wall can be moved" use "Bantradian." It avoids confusion with actual economic theories by people like Thomas Malthus, unlike your choice for that word, "malthusian" (which exists in English already as "Malthusian" with a meaning that is related to Thomas Malthus).
I knew that using the Yicratic Method would get Pat to screw up. :smarty:
I will try to put this in a way that even a Swede could understand, although that is probably beyond my powers.
If the crude* Malthusian thesis is correct, than it must be the case that all preindustrial socities must converge to subsistence levels of existence.
But at the very time Malthus was writing, per capita GDP in the UK was somewhere in the area of $1500 in constant dollars as opposed to $450 which would be roughly the subsistence level. Moreover, this was not a temporary phenomenon: surplus per capita levels of affluence were reached in the late middle ages and continued to grow constantly and steadily (if slowly) after that. The same holds true for most of Western Europe.
This occurred because the application of improved agricultural techniques allowed the means of subsistence to expand faster than the population supported by those means. Another contributor was the Western European marriage pattern, which delayed child bearing and hence slowed population growth.
*Note that the actual, real life Malthus recognized that his principles of population were tendancies, not iron laws, and that societies could in fact take steps to control population growth so as to sustain affluence.
The problem with my namesake's theory is that there are very few human societies in which it could apply, because there are few in which access to food simpliciter was the primary restriction on population.
In preindustrial societies, such things as disease and war most certainly were the primary causes of population crashes, as opposed to simply running out of food; in fact, starvation was usually a result of war and social collapse, not the cause.
In the 20th century, mass famines have almost inevitably been caused by either deliberate government action (Ukraine, Ethiopia) or the breakdown of society accompanied by war; I can't really think of any cases in which simply having too many people in and of itself caused starvation.
That isn't to say that an increased population doesn't increase problems, cause environmental degredation, etc., only that an actual Malthusian crisis seems more of a theoretical threat.
Quote from: Malthus on April 28, 2011, 12:35:28 PM
The problem with my namesake's theory is that there are very few human societies in which it could apply, because there are few in which access to food simpliciter was the primary restriction on population.
In preindustrial societies, such things as disease and war most certainly were the primary causes of population crashes, as opposed to simply running out of food; in fact, starvation was usually a result of war and social collapse, not the cause.
In the 20th century, mass famines have almost inevitably been caused by either deliberate government action (Ukraine, Ethiopia) or the breakdown of society accompanied by war; I can't really think of any cases in which simply having too many people in and of itself caused starvation.
That isn't to say that an increased population doesn't increase problems, cause environmental degredation, etc., only that an actual Malthusian crisis seems more of a theoretical threat.
I think you can make an argument that things can go haywire before actual starvation from lack of food occurs. If you're starting to run up against the limit of food supplies, food prices go way up, and the masses start getting restless. With the restless masses, some kind of devastating conflict is going to emerge sooner or later, and then you have the famines from devastation.
Likewise, insufficient rations can fail to kill outright, but make one more predisposed to deaths from diseases or plagues.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 28, 2011, 07:45:14 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 28, 2011, 07:35:09 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2011, 07:21:43 AM
Slargos' anti-American trolling is beginning to get tiresome. :yawn:
:lol:
Deposed any Saudi Arabian dictators lately? :lol:
Why should we? They are our Romania. Delivering the sweet oil to their master.
My point is of course that USA is perfectly content to invade over resources or rely on exports from nations governed by dictators if it works better.
Pot, kettle.
Dictator does not equal Totalitarian.
Quote from: DGuller on April 28, 2011, 12:57:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 28, 2011, 12:35:28 PM
The problem with my namesake's theory is that there are very few human societies in which it could apply, because there are few in which access to food simpliciter was the primary restriction on population.
In preindustrial societies, such things as disease and war most certainly were the primary causes of population crashes, as opposed to simply running out of food; in fact, starvation was usually a result of war and social collapse, not the cause.
In the 20th century, mass famines have almost inevitably been caused by either deliberate government action (Ukraine, Ethiopia) or the breakdown of society accompanied by war; I can't really think of any cases in which simply having too many people in and of itself caused starvation.
That isn't to say that an increased population doesn't increase problems, cause environmental degredation, etc., only that an actual Malthusian crisis seems more of a theoretical threat.
I think you can make an argument that things can go haywire before actual starvation from lack of food occurs. If you're starting to run up against the limit of food supplies, food prices go way up, and the masses start getting restless. With the restless masses, some kind of devastating conflict is going to emerge sooner or later, and then you have the famines from devastation.
Likewise, insufficient rations can fail to kill outright, but make one more predisposed to deaths from diseases or plagues.
I suppose you could, but from what I understand evidence lacks that this actually happens to any great degree, outside of unusual cases like Easter Island.
The only large scale cases I can think of where actual lack of food drives conflict is in very marginal environments, like the steppe, where a drying-up of grassland can lead one tribe of nomads to attempt to displace another.
In most other cases of conflict, the actual source of the conflict is more often causes entirely unrelated to lack of food.
This is true even of conflicts below the historical horizon (assuming that primitive peoples still existing today are analogous to those existing in the past). For example, in tribal conflicts in New Guinea, the conflict is often started over alleged insults or accusations of witchcraft; if a village is beaten, the victors generally do not take over their territory, for fear of curses. This does not comport well with a Mathusian explanation.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 01:19:04 PM
Dictator does not equal Totalitarian.
Sugarcoat it however you wish. I see that you didn't object to my accusation about invasions though. I guess there's some honesty in you at least. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2011, 09:00:37 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 07:47:15 AM
Wasn't Romanians that burned the Reichstag so not sure if I follow the analogy.
Same as Saudi citizens were involved with September 11th! OMG! It is a perfect analogy!
Oh and Bush = Hitler.
I just ran with Ed Anger's Nazi Germany = US analogy but poor you being victim of hideous anti-americanism I guess.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 28, 2011, 10:38:47 AM
I knew that using the Yicratic Method would get Pat to screw up. :smarty:
Because I'm not following grumblers rules of how to write my posts? I've had this very discussion with grumbler before and he knows exactly what I mean. Last time around grumbler argued I couldn't use the term "malthusian dynamics" to refer to "population growth vs. resources-dynamics" (or whatever) because Malthus didn't use the term in his writings. Well. Malthus is the writer associated with population growth vs. resources so it's a convenient word to use and one I'll keep using until I find one that I like better. And let me make this clear so even Americans can understand it, although that is probably beyond my powers:
I am using the term loosely to refer to population-resource dynamics and not in reference to every single thing Malthus said or did.
Re: Joan. I said I didn't believe it was an iron-bound law and not that Malthus said it was. You seem really desperate to score points or something.
There are no points on Languish. There could be, it's just that no one has ever made a quality post here.
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2011, 02:34:05 PM
There are no points on Languish. There could be, it's just that no one has ever made a quality post here.
I think you have made many, many quality posts. :hmm:
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 02:29:13 PM
I just ran with Ed Anger's Nazi Germany = US analogy but poor you being victim of hideous anti-americanism I guess.
I was running with the same thing I just misunderstood your post :blush:
This is the second time you took a joke post of mine and thought I was some sort of American hypernationalist. :lol:
Quote from: Slargos on April 28, 2011, 02:49:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2011, 02:34:05 PM
There are no points on Languish. There could be, it's just that no one has ever made a quality post here.
I think you have made many, many quality posts. :hmm:
LOL WUT
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2011, 02:34:05 PM
There are no points on Languish. There could be, it's just that no one has ever made a quality post here.
I have points. I refer you to my sig, my good man.
Quote from: Valmy on April 28, 2011, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 02:29:13 PM
I just ran with Ed Anger's Nazi Germany = US analogy but poor you being victim of hideous anti-americanism I guess.
I was running with the same thing I just misunderstood your post :blush:
This is the second time you took a joke post of mine and thought I was some sort of American hypernationalist. :lol:
Indeed, when the truth is you lack the spine to stand by any issue.
POWOHNOHEDIDDINYESHEDIDYESHEDID
I'm sorry, I already regret it. :(
For a while I was considering giving out negative points and giving myself positive points to keep a balance of things. Then it occurred to me that might be crazy, and I try to avoid doing crazy things.
Quote from: Slargos on April 28, 2011, 02:53:49 PM
Indeed, when the truth is you lack the spine to stand by any issue.
POWOHNOHEDIDDINYESHEDIDYESHEDID
I'm sorry, I already regret it. :(
You wound me sir :(
I have both given and received points on this forum.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2011, 03:12:53 PM
I have both given and received points on this forum.
I had some really cool points. An honorary Englishman point IIRC.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2011, 03:12:53 PM
I have both given and received points on this forum.
I award one Crazy Canuck point for clarity of thought above and beyond the norm of Languish.
I also award JR 1,000,000 points for causing Pat to suggest that JR deserves a point.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Frolleyes_puking_rolleyes837.gif&hash=ac317deed76b186abde862d7f4d0064d1a6e4d04)
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2011, 03:19:39 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Frolleyes_puking_rolleyes837.gif&hash=ac317deed76b186abde862d7f4d0064d1a6e4d04)
No points for you!
Don't worry Brain - I hereby award you a Res Ipsa Loquitor point, of which I haven't handed any out for several years.
Which reminds me - they were set up to see if people could guess on what basis they were being handed out, but the whole point thing in particular just died out... :(
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2011, 03:23:58 PM
Don't worry Brain - I hereby award you a Res Ipsa Loquitor point, of which I haven't handed any out for several years.
I dont think it is obvious that Brain breached a duty of care but you are by nature a prosecutor and so more harsh in your judgments at times.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 02:29:13 PM
. And let me make this clear so even Americans can understand it, although that is probably beyond my powers: I am using the term loosely to refer to population-resource dynamics and not in reference to every single thing Malthus said or did.
But what is meant by "population-resource dynamics"?
The only hint is your agreement with Slargos' statement that "[A]s long as you have population growth, you're eventually going to run into the wall. Unless of course the wall can be moved."
That statement is turn is explained by Slargos' explanation: "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."
This is nonsense. The wall "moves" not because of "resource extraction from outside the West" but because technical progress facilitates greater levels of output and more efficient mobilization and allocation of available inputs. The proof is that the rise in living standards in Western Europe dates from before imperial expansion and accelerates at the very time that imperial exploitation retracts. Another proof is the present rise of much of the third world into relative affluence while the former first world still retains its own affluence in absolute terms.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2011, 03:12:53 PM
I have both given and received points on this forum.
So, you're both catcher and pitcher?
I'm not sure the act is in any way analogous to either baseball or sex.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 28, 2011, 03:49:36 PM
I'm not sure the act is in any way analogous to either baseball or sex.
But it does give some insight into how Raz views both.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2011, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2011, 03:23:58 PM
Don't worry Brain - I hereby award you a Res Ipsa Loquitor point, of which I haven't handed any out for several years.
I dont think it is obvious that Brain breached a duty of care but you are by nature a prosecutor and so more harsh in your judgments at times.
I think your law latin is a bit rusty. :console:
Quote from: Barrister on April 28, 2011, 03:56:01 PM
I think your law latin is a bit rusty. :console:
Actually your point would have been better if you had left out the word "law". It is the legal meaning of those words which animates my comment. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 03:39:47 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 02:29:13 PM
. And let me make this clear so even Americans can understand it, although that is probably beyond my powers: I am using the term loosely to refer to population-resource dynamics and not in reference to every single thing Malthus said or did.
But what is meant by "population-resource dynamics"?
The only hint is your agreement with Slargos' statement that "[A]s long as you have population growth, you're eventually going to run into the wall. Unless of course the wall can be moved."
That statement is turn is explained by Slargos' explanation: "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."
This is nonsense. The wall "moves" not because of "resource extraction from outside the West" but because technical progress facilitates greater levels of output and more efficient mobilization and allocation of available inputs. The proof is that the rise in living standards in Western Europe dates from before imperial expansion and accelerates at the very time that imperial exploitation retracts. Another proof is the present rise of much of the third world into relative affluence while the former first world still retains its own affluence in absolute terms.
SIGH. I dumb it down all I can and still...
It is meant exactly what it says. I use the term to refer to population in relation to resources and I use the term loosely. That I use the term loosely means that I won't specify it in detail so that the term becomes a narrow one. What exactly is it that you don't undertand?
And what's up with deliberately misconstruing and putting words in my mouth (agreeing with one thing is agreeing with everything? really? :yeahright:). Seriously, wtf? Sorry, I would've been glad to have had a fair and open discussion because I've had those before with you and I've even changed my mind during those discussions so you know I'm not impossible to talk to but this is just rediculous and I'm not playing along with this bullshit...
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 05:27:52 PM
I'm not playing along with this bullshit...
Dont let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 05:27:52 PM
It is meant exactly what it says. I use the term to refer to population in relation to resources and I use the term loosely. That I use the term loosely means that I won't specify it in detail so that the term becomes a narrow one. What exactly is it that you don't undertand?
I apologize then.
I had understood that you were trying to say something of substance. Now that it is clear that you weren't actually saying anything determinate at all, I realize that was an error to attempt any substantive response.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 05:27:52 PM
It is meant exactly what it says. I use the term to refer to population in relation to resources and I use the term loosely. That I use the term loosely means that I won't specify it in detail so that the term becomes a narrow one. What exactly is it that you don't undertand?
I apologize then.
I had understood that you were trying to say something of substance. Now that it is clear that you weren't actually saying anything determinate at all, I realize that was an error to attempt any substantive response.
Dont let the door hit you in the ass on your way out sounds better.
Now he's going to rape some poor girl. :(
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 05:27:52 PM
SIGH. I dumb it down all I can and still...
I think we can all agree that your argument started out at Pretty Fucking Dumb, and got dumber with each post. Finally, you hit Totally Fucking Braindead, and still couldn't communicate.
Maybe you should consider the possibility that you went in the wrong direction from the start.
Quote from: The Brain on April 28, 2011, 02:34:05 PM
There are no points on Languish. There could be, it's just that no one has ever made a quality post here.
I hereby grant you 6.21 Pie Points.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 28, 2011, 05:40:41 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 05:27:52 PM
It is meant exactly what it says. I use the term to refer to population in relation to resources and I use the term loosely. That I use the term loosely means that I won't specify it in detail so that the term becomes a narrow one. What exactly is it that you don't undertand?
I apologize then.
I had understood that you were trying to say something of substance. Now that it is clear that you weren't actually saying anything determinate at all, I realize that was an error to attempt any substantive response.
I was saying something of substance but the discussion became one of pettiness and semantics as it always does and of course now it's just people without arguments ganging up on me. Oh and Valmy, once again sorry for overreacting to you but with the last few posts maybe you can see why I have a bit of a bunker mentality when I come here. ;) Good night everyone.
Is that a dessert pie or one of those English main course pies?
Just to clarify: That I showed some disappointment with Joan is because he's one of the people I actually respect here. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to care about what all the fucking retards are writing.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 06:04:01 PM
Just to clarify: That I showed some disappointment with Joan is because he's one of the people I actually respect here. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to care about what all the fucking retards are writing.
Wait a minute, I thought you ragequit!
I really hated when I miss a thread like this one!
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 06:04:01 PM
Just to clarify: That I showed some disappointment with Joan is because he's one of the people I actually respect here. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to care about what all the fucking retards are writing.
That's okay, we don't respect you either. You fucking rapist.
Where does the rapist thing come from?
Oh, I remember now.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 06:36:48 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 06:04:01 PM
Just to clarify: That I showed some disappointment with Joan is because he's one of the people I actually respect here. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to care about what all the fucking retards are writing.
That's okay, we don't respect you either. You fucking rapist.
:huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2011, 06:37:43 PM
Where does the rapist thing come from?
SE asia and rent girls or somesuch. jesus do i have to remember everything for you people?
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2011, 06:04:01 PM
Just to clarify: That I showed some disappointment with Joan is because he's one of the people I actually respect here. That doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to care about what all the fucking retards are writing.
Just to clarify: no matter how many times you come back to insult people here, that doesn't mean we're suddenly going to care about whether you fucking ragequit or not. :hug:
Quote from: katmai on April 28, 2011, 07:00:43 PM
SE asia and rent girls or somesuch. jesus do i have to remember everything for you people?
I must admit that I don't tend to remember all the posts from the likes of Pat. Was this some deal where he had sex one time and then "realized" that "all sex is rape?"
Honestly i don't recall specifics :D :P
It was in somewhere in South Asia (I think it was Sri Lanka), he hired a prostitute who he believed was a POW. If I recall correctly he called it a "not unpleasant" experience.
I found the thread.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3311.180
QuoteNo sleep, so pardon my kidnapping of this thread while I tell another anecdote of Sri Lanka. My friend and I, both young men in our best years, one night found ourself in want of something to do for an evening in Colombo - unfortunately, this endeavour we made our own we found to be quite difficult in a pitch-dark city under curfew with few cars on the street except military vehicles, and few people to be seen walking except men in uniform with big weapons walking two-and-two one on each side of the street. After some searching, however, our new-found friend the tuk-tuk driver promised to find us a place owned by one of the generals, and hence above the law. It was a nice place, although hidden away, in a cellar, with a non-descript entrance. We were soon approached by ladies asking to join us, which we agreed to, though we didn't agree to buying them drinks. At least not as much as they wanted us to. They were pleasant company, but I assume that was their job to be. As the evening passed and the mental fortitude found itself conquered by beer, my friend suggested we should take them up on some of their more shame-less offers, and I acquiesced.
Anyway, we were informed the ladies in question were for purpose of company in the bar and no more, and we were escorted elsewhere, into another non-descript entrance, up a flight of stairs. I was very drunk, but I made it up the stairs with only the slightest of difficulty. I soon found myself in the company of a stout, short and sturdily built, muscular rather than fat, young lady. The experience was not entirely unpleasant, but not very pleasant either. As this is a family forum, I shall spare you the details. She was quite obviously tamil, based on her complexion and other characteristics, where tamils differ from sinhalese, but it was only later I drew the conclusion she was probably a prisoner of war. The Tamil Tigers employ female cadres with great efficiency, and they also make the best suicide bombers. Sinhalese troops are told to be extra careful with the ugly tamil women, as those women are the most likely to want to blow themselves up, or so it is said, from 25 years of counter-insurgency experience.
You'd all be quite right to condemn me for my lack of morals. Probably not a very good idea of mine to write this little confession of what might be a crime (anyone more well-versed in itl. law here who knows if it might be? I am talking about soliciting the services of a prisoner of war). I blame these sleeping pills, they do strange things to me without making me sleep. But I trust present company to be familiar with the old saying of snitches get stitches. Now I'll try taking another one of these things.
You have to chain yourself to the bed when you're taking Z-drugs for sleep. I've gotten up, after taking them and not being able to sleep for an hour, and posted things on Languish that I might not have in a proper state of mind. Fortunately, I can say with near certainty that I've never had sex with a prisoner of war, so the stakes are a little lower. :sleep:
Quote from: katmai on April 28, 2011, 07:00:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 28, 2011, 06:37:43 PM
Where does the rapist thing come from?
SE asia and rent girls or somesuch. jesus do i have to remember everything for you people?
In a word - yes.
So let this be a lesson to you all. Don't say anything on this board you don't want to be reminded of. Raz remembers everything. Everything... :ph34r:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on April 28, 2011, 07:46:35 PM
You have to chain yourself to the bed when you're taking Z-drugs for sleep. I've gotten up, after taking them and not being able to sleep for an hour, and posted things on Languish that I might not have in a proper state of mind. Fortunately, I can say with near certainty that I've never had sex with a prisoner of war, so the stakes are a little lower. :sleep:
I've never had issues with them at all.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 10:07:27 PM
So let this be a lesson to you all. Don't say anything on this board you don't want to be reminded of. Raz remembers everything. Everything... :ph34r:
Bringing Raz into Languish is like bringing a digital camera to a party. That shit's just not right.
LOL "digital camera", pops?
Quote from: Slargos on April 29, 2011, 01:24:33 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 10:07:27 PM
So let this be a lesson to you all. Don't say anything on this board you don't want to be reminded of. Raz remembers everything. Everything... :ph34r:
Bringing Raz into Languish is like bringing a digital camera to a party. That shit's just not right.
If we have to put up with you then he can come too.
Quote from: garbon on April 28, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
I've never had issues with them at all.
They are very useful, but if you take them and still can't fall asleep, and get up while they are acting, you can act strangely... combined with the amnesia, it can lead to embarrassing choices. Sleep-eating is a common one.
What can I say, it's not something I'm proud of and I probably deserve to be reminded of it.
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2011, 07:36:09 AM
What can I say, it's not something I'm proud of and I probably deserve to be reminded of it.
:lol:
That's bull shit.
You deserve to have it slapped in your face for showing the remarkable stupidity of jawing about it here, but you sure as shit don't "deserve" to be reminded of it for its own sake. If you need reminding of it, it certainly wasn't that big a deal for you, and your crocodile tears are of little value here.
The Good Lord will punish you as he sees fit.
BTW Joan I wonder if you're familar with the works of economic historian Gregory Clark? He seems to be the currently most fervent champion of Malthusianism (in a sense of the word more in line with grumblers) and while I remain unconvinced of his more extraordinary conclusions (especially his proposed cause for the industrial revolution) I find some of his arguments to be very firm and some of them go directly counter to what you're saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYspzYiX_kg
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffilipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fgreat-divergence-graph-income-per-person-throughout-history.png&hash=689cc5c17589c446c9ebe2b6909e3b3cb107a672)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 28, 2011, 10:07:27 PM
So let this be a lesson to you all. Don't say anything on this board you don't want to be reminded of. Raz remembers everything. Everything... :ph34r:
This is most definitely not something you should be boasting about.
Quote from: Slargos on April 29, 2011, 07:47:34 AM
You deserve to have it slapped in your face for showing the remarkable stupidity of jawing about it here...
This. People who discuss personal stuff on the internet deserve what happens as a result.
Quote from: grumbler on April 29, 2011, 07:49:48 AM
Quote from: Slargos on April 29, 2011, 07:47:34 AM
You deserve to have it slapped in your face for showing the remarkable stupidity of jawing about it here...
This. People who discuss personal stuff on the internet deserve what happens as a result.
:D
Well. I wouldn't go that far, but technically you're of course 100% correct.
However, there's a difference between telling people about your failing grades and addiction to hentai porn, and the fact that you once raped a POW. :hmm:
Presuming she didn't have tentacles or animal parts, that's a step up on the hentai fetishists.
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
BTW Joan I wonder if you're familar with the works of economic historian Gregory Clark? He seems to be the currently most fervent champion of Malthusianism (in a sense of the word more in line with grumblers) and while I remain unconvinced of his more extraordinary conclusions (especially his proposed cause for the industrial revolution) I find some of his arguments to be very firm and some of them go directly counter to what you're saying.
The video is an hour an half long. :bleeding: He has an entry on Wikipedia which is a bit more concise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Clark_%28economist%29 If the theory there is what you are alluding to, it's very, very strange.
That Wiki article isn't very good. You only have to see the start of the video for his view of general Malthusian theory (but the rest of it is interesting as well).
Anyway I have to go and I'll be away over the weekend. Hopefully someone will have had time to watch the start of the video when I get back to tell me why he's wrong. This is me ragequitting for now and don't worry, I wont let the door hit me in the ass on my way out (though I appreciate your concern ;)).
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2011, 10:20:25 AM
Anyway I have to go and I'll be away over the weekend. Hopefully someone will have had time to watch the start of the video when I get back to tell me why he's wrong. This is me ragequitting for now and don't worry, I wont let the door hit me in the ass on my way out (though I appreciate your concern ;) ).
If you get offered any POW poontang, please just say "No" this time.
Don't worry, I'll be out in the skärgård for some Valborg celebration, no wars there.
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2011, 10:31:20 AM
Don't worry, I'll be out in the skärgård for some Valborg celebration, no wars there.
... yet...
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
BTW Joan I wonder if you're familar with the works of economic historian Gregory Clark?
yes - he is the "Farewell to Alms" guy. His book is at least semi-polemical and does not reflect a majority view. In particular, he somehow has to argue around the very strong data that suggest that significant and sustained increases in affluence in Western European societies began to arise centuries before the Industrial Revolution. The way he does does is to question the principal source for economic data for these periods (Maddison). But the trend in research among economics historians and econometricians has been pushing in other direction - i.e. lowering estimates of economic growth per capita in the early industrial period (1800-1850) while moving the occurence of that growth back in time. Similarly, Clark cites de Vries' "Industrious Revolution" in a way to suggest that the trends of consumerism and industriousness were a "new phenomenon" associated with the industrial revolution; in fact, de Vries' thesis is that these developments well predated the industrial revolution and that there is no clear or hard and fast temporal dividing line or periodization.
Basically, what Clark does is pound some rather awkward data with a hammer until it fits theory, rather than try to fit his theory to the data. that is why I say semi-polemical.
On a purely theoretical level, my own view is that most kinds of neo-malthusian theories are going to be untenable because they fail to take into account the full dynamics of the relationship between population and production and in particular, the potential connection between population growth and economic incentives to pursue productively enhancing innovation.
*Note - have not yet viewed the linked video.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 01:00:05 PM
yes - he is the "Farewell to Alms" guy. His book is at least semi-polemical and does not reflect a majority view. In particular, he somehow has to argue around the very strong data that suggest that significant and sustained increases in affluence in Western European societies began to arise centuries before the Industrial Revolution. The way he does does is to question the principal source for economic data for these periods (Maddison). But the trend in research among economics historians and econometricians has been pushing in other direction - i.e. lowering estimates of economic growth per capita in the early industrial period (1800-1850) while moving the occurence of that growth back in time. Similarly, Clark cites de Vries' "Industrious Revolution" in a way to suggest that the trends of consumerism and industriousness were a "new phenomenon" associated with the industrial revolution; in fact, de Vries' thesis is that these developments well predated the industrial revolution and that there is no clear or hard and fast temporal dividing line or periodization.
Basically, what Clark does is pound some rather awkward data with a hammer until it fits theory, rather than try to fit his theory to the data. that is why I say semi-polemical.
On a purely theoretical level, my own view is that most kinds of neo-malthusian theories are going to be untenable because they fail to take into account the full dynamics of the relationship between population and production and in particular, the potential connection between population growth and economic incentives to pursue productively enhancing innovation.
*Note - have not yet viewed the linked video.
I don't think Clark is presenting a theory so much as a hypothesis. He isn't predicting what data we would find if we looked further in certain areas, he is just explaining some results he discovered. He concedes that his hypothesis rests on assumptions about the family sizes and mortality rates of lower-class couples which don't come from extrapolations of significant existing data (simply because his source of information is wills; looking up a statistically significant number of parish records of births and deaths was beyond his capabilities).
Personally, I find his assumption that working class people lacked the drive to excel a bit hard to take, especially if he really is coupling it with the insinuation that the upper class was genetically superior.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 29, 2011, 01:00:05 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
BTW Joan I wonder if you're familar with the works of economic historian Gregory Clark?
yes - he is the "Farewell to Alms" guy. His book is at least semi-polemical and does not reflect a majority view. In particular, he somehow has to argue around the very strong data that suggest that significant and sustained increases in affluence in Western European societies began to arise centuries before the Industrial Revolution. The way he does does is to question the principal source for economic data for these periods (Maddison). But the trend in research among economics historians and econometricians has been pushing in other direction - i.e. lowering estimates of economic growth per capita in the early industrial period (1800-1850) while moving the occurence of that growth back in time. Similarly, Clark cites de Vries' "Industrious Revolution" in a way to suggest that the trends of consumerism and industriousness were a "new phenomenon" associated with the industrial revolution; in fact, de Vries' thesis is that these developments well predated the industrial revolution and that there is no clear or hard and fast temporal dividing line or periodization.
Basically, what Clark does is pound some rather awkward data with a hammer until it fits theory, rather than try to fit his theory to the data. that is why I say semi-polemical.
On a purely theoretical level, my own view is that most kinds of neo-malthusian theories are going to be untenable because they fail to take into account the full dynamics of the relationship between population and production and in particular, the potential connection between population growth and economic incentives to pursue productively enhancing innovation.
*Note - have not yet viewed the linked video.
Well, you don't seem to be very familiar with what he's saying, and I don't know where you're getting your view of him from. I particularly don't know why you think "he somehow has to argue around the very strong data that suggest that significant and sustained increases in affluence in Western European societies began to arise centuries before the Industrial Revolution". I refer you to p. 239 ff. I quote:
"The discussion above suggests that the transition between the static Mathusian (sic!) economy, which lasted at least a hundred thousand years, and the modern economy can be dated to 1760-1800. But that appearance of a definitive break between the two regimes, in the blink of an eye in terms of human history, is mistaken. Instead a whole series of contingencies conspired to make the break seem much more definitive and sudden than it was.
The first sign that the transition date is more ambiguous than the traditional histories suggest comes from an examination of the efficiency of the English economy all the way back to 1246."
I'm not really interested in defending everything he says though, firstly because I remain unconvinced of a lot of what he's saying and secondly because I'm not an economist myself and would do a poor job of it. What I really would like your opinion on is the thesis that the west progressed from a malthusian economy to a modern non-malthusian economy and whether you believe this to be a fair assessment of world economic history (please note that when this happened isn't quite as important as whether it happened).
Sorry, my bad. I answered too fast and may have misunderstood some of the implications of what you're saying (but would still appreciate an answer to my above question).
A hundred thousand years? I'm not sure behavioral modernity is that old.
Why would that be relevant?
Quote from: Pat on May 01, 2011, 09:51:14 AM
Why would that be relevant?
If we are to include a time before Human beings were fulling sentient, why not go back before they even walked up right. Why not say a Malthusian trap extending back to the Mesozoic? The concept of economy doesn't date back that far. I don't think Malthus was considering agricultural output before agriculture.
Yes, why not? Why not go back that far? Based on logic he could've gone back to before the human species existed, before mammals existed or even back to the start of life on the planet. Generally speaking all plant, animal and bacterial life is malthusian. This isn't so hard. Let's say you have a niche in the eco-system of a certain size and you have more individuals than can fit into the niche. Then there must be competition within the niche because there's not room for everyone. This is Malthus. Darwin realized that only the fittest would survive under these conditions and that variations that are successful would propagate. Darwin builds on Malthus. Humans today, at least in the West, are different from basically all other (non-domesticated, edit) living things in that we do not currently labour under these conditions but there isn't really any question in my mind whether we used to do so as everyone else (but I'm curious as to what Joan/Minsky has to say on the matter).
Quote from: Pat on May 01, 2011, 10:14:11 AM
Then there must be competition within the niche because there's not room for everyone. This is Malthus.
BTW this was a bit simplistic but suffice to say it is competition from an evolutionary perspective which must not be competition in the sense of individuals pitted against each other in direct confrontative competition. Especially in cold climates it is often so that the winner in darwinian competition is the one that co-operates with others. Darwin went to the tropics where there's ample resources year round there for the taking and this has influenced later darwinian understanding in a very unfortunate way. Prince Krapotkin, who after leaving the corps of pages at the russian court surprised everyone by choosing (because he wanted to make contributions to science) to be stationed in the far east even though he could've chosen any regiment he wanted, had read Darwin and expected to see this fierce competition over resources but saw very little of it, rather the opposite, which is to say co-operation, even between different species. His excellent and brilliantly written book about mutual aid as a factor of evolution is a great riposte to more crude and simplistic understandings of evolutionary theory.
edit: his memoirs are fascinating and a great read. I have an edition printed in 1904 where it says "Prince Krapotkin" which looks nice in the book-shelf (my newer Krapotkin books say Peter Krapotkin or something similar).
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2011, 07:49:08 AM
BTW Joan I wonder if you're familar with the works of economic historian Gregory Clark? He seems to be the currently most fervent champion of Malthusianism (in a sense of the word more in line with grumblers) and while I remain unconvinced of his more extraordinary conclusions (especially his proposed cause for the industrial revolution) I find some of his arguments to be very firm and some of them go directly counter to what you're saying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYspzYiX_kg
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffilipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fgreat-divergence-graph-income-per-person-throughout-history.png&hash=689cc5c17589c446c9ebe2b6909e3b3cb107a672)
I have a hard time thinking that he would be worthwhile if he doesn't know that there was no year 0.
;) Good point.
Not saying he's a particularly worthwhile read btw though he might spark a very worthwhile dialectical process (that one can then read about summed up in secondary literature).
QuoteDarwin realized that only the fittest would survive under these conditions and that variations that are successful would propagate.
You do know that Darwinian Evolution has nothing to do with "Fitness", right?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 01:42:33 PM
QuoteDarwin realized that only the fittest would survive under these conditions and that variations that are successful would propagate.
You do know that Darwinian Evolution has nothing to do with "Fitness", right?
Sure it does. Gazelles that don't do enough cardio get eaten. Lions that don't starve. :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 01:42:33 PM
QuoteDarwin realized that only the fittest would survive under these conditions and that variations that are successful would propagate.
You do know that Darwinian Evolution has nothing to do with "Fitness", right?
Sigh...
FITNESS FROM A DARWINIAN PERSPECTIVE.
I don't know why I bother being so nice. You know, I've never insulted you personally even though it would be so fucking easy.
Sigh...
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
I don't know why I bother insulting you. It seems cruel to do so to a person like you.
I don't want to pick on someone with mental illness but your utter fucking stupidity is probably unrelated though I'm not sure. Either way you're a fucking retard.
You don't understand what fitness is from a Darwinian perspective? Really? If there actually is someone else who does not understand this (though I doubt it) please come forward and I'll explain it nicely. I've really tried being nice and explaining things to this one but I only receive the lowest form of ressentiment back, there is no use, I give up.
Maybe this all makes sense in Swedish, but when you use words like "Malthusian" and "fitness" and indicate definitions that differ from what is commonly used it's pretty confusing. When you use an economic theory concerning agricultural output levels and population increases and extended to apply back before agriculture (or even plants), I find that really bizarre. Now, I'm not the Economics guy on the board. That's JR. Nor am I the Biology guy on the board. Viking and Berkut know much more about that. I'm not even that well educated, but even I can see the flaws in all this nonsense.
Is it really so hard to understand that words can have different meanings depending on context? Not that it's just you with that problem. Is it some American thing?
Quote from: Pat on May 01, 2011, 02:30:07 PM
Is it really so hard to understand that words can have different meanings depending on context? Not that it's just you with that problem. Is it some American thing?
I think it might be an American thing.
There is a term "fitness" in biology but doesn't seem to apply to your odd dichotomy of "Cold" vs "Tropic". However, "fitness" is frequently used in discussions of evolution by people who don't know much about Darwinian Evolution.
Oh and LOL, yeah, obviously I made all this shit up.
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)
Theories of agriculture relevant to things before agriculture? Nonsense that even Raz can see the flaws in!
Not to mention Darwin uses words like favorable and unfavorable! He must be ill versed in Darwinianism. Because that's a word we can only use to describe exactly what he said and nothing else.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:37:48 PM
I think it might be an American thing.
There is a term "fitness" in biology but doesn't seem to apply to your odd dichotomy of "Cold" vs "Tropic". However, "fitness" is frequently used in discussions of evolution by people who don't know much about Darwinian Evolution.
I don't understand your point, Raz.
You were the person who introduced the word "fitness" into this discussion.
And oh I forgot! The generally understood meaning of favorable is something that we people find favorable. So that must be what he means and it if that's not what he means he's wrong.
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2011, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:37:48 PM
I think it might be an American thing.
There is a term "fitness" in biology but doesn't seem to apply to your odd dichotomy of "Cold" vs "Tropic". However, "fitness" is frequently used in discussions of evolution by people who don't know much about Darwinian Evolution.
I don't understand your point, Raz. You were the person who introduced the word "fitness" into this discussion.
He used the word "fittest". There was a reason I changed it to "Fitness" but I forgot what it was. Some grammatical reason. I oven change the sentence structure several times before I post so and sometimes I leave parts out.
Dude, I used the phrase "survival of the fittest" which Darwin himself used from 5th ed. of Species onwards. I know he didn't coin it but he used it himself and he used it as a synonym for natural selection. I used it to describe the ideas of Darwin in the words he himself used, and because of this you say I don't know much about Darwinism?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:49:23 PM
He used the word "fittest". There was a reason I changed it to "Fitness" but I forgot what it was. Some grammatical reason. I oven change the sentence structure several times before I post so and sometimes I leave parts out.
"Survival of the fittest" is about the "best fit" (into the environment) not the "most fit" (which is the kind of "fit" used in "fitness").
Well it was Spencer who coined the term and he was a social darwinist so I guess it could have been meant that way by him (I honestly don't know, maybe you know better grumbler). But anyway I praised Krapotkin who was the foremost opponent of the social darwinists and the one who championed alternative interpretations so there is really no reason to interpret it as some sort of support for social darwinism on my part simply because I use the term (unless of course one is bent on interpreting everything as maliciously as possible). For the record I am not a social darwinist...
Quote from: grumbler on May 01, 2011, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2011, 02:49:23 PM
He used the word "fittest". There was a reason I changed it to "Fitness" but I forgot what it was. Some grammatical reason. I oven change the sentence structure several times before I post so and sometimes I leave parts out.
"Survival of the fittest" is about the "best fit" (into the environment) not the "most fit" (which is the kind of "fit" used in "fitness").
I don't think that was what Spencer meant. I believe he intended "Fittest" to me "superior"
QuoteCombined with the enormous multiplying powers of all organisms, & the "struggle for existence" leading to the constant destruction of by far the largest proportion,—facts which no one of your opponents, as far as I am aware, has denied or misunderstood,—"the survival of the fittest" rather than of those who were less fit, could not possibly be denied or misunderstood.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-5140#back-mark-5140.f5 Here is a letter discussing the term. Sent to Darwin from fellow naturalist Alfred Wallace discussing Spencer's term. The impression I get is "fittest" is assumed to mean "fitness" not "fitting".
Anyway, I was taught that "survival of the fittest" is a bad term to use being inaccurate and confusing.
Yes I tried to be really clear and succinct in getting my post across but then I realized I could be misunderstood so I made sure I carefully explained that I meant "competition" from a strictly darwinian perspective which is absolutely not the same thing as normal competition and then you went ahead and tried to "get me" on not doing the same thing with another phrase (which I of course also intended to be interpreted in the same way).
Why are you guys debating Darwinism?
I guess because threads can evolve and devolve, become more or less fit, more or less favorable (everything depending on perspective)
Why not discuss the corpuscular theory or a heliocentric universe while you're at it? Or a flat earth?
What of darwinism I have mentioned is favorable variations propagating. If you're saying that part has been superceded you're wrong.
edit: That they propagate, not how...
Quote from: Pat on May 01, 2011, 07:48:24 AM
I'm not really interested in defending everything he says though, firstly because I remain unconvinced of a lot of what he's saying and secondly because I'm not an economist myself and would do a poor job of it. What I really would like your opinion on is the thesis that the west progressed from a malthusian economy to a modern non-malthusian economy and whether you believe this to be a fair assessment of world economic history (please note that when this happened isn't quite as important as whether it happened).
I don't think food supply constraints have historically been the principal limiting factor in human population growth - at least in Europe. I am not sufficiently familiar with Chinese or Indian history and Malthusian constraint may have operated there at times. But in Europe as whole prior to the high Middle Ages shortage of arable land was not a major issue, given the capability to clear forest and drain swamps. As population density grew, raising the value of agricultural land -- and thus the potential returns on investment -- there was an innovation response in terms of improved technology and techniques. One can question whether the trend of population growth in the late 14 century could have been sustained absent the Plague, but that is a counterfactual.