http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9867/
An interesting article I found and agree with.
But the truth, as history shows us, is that population is not the only variable. Resources are a variable, too. So is mankind’s vision, determination, and ability to rethink and tackle problems. These things grow and change just as population does. Malthusians’ mathematics doesn’t add up, because their social pessimism means that they fail to factor in possibly the most important and decisive variable of all: mankind’s ingenuity. It seems very clear to me that today, still, the main problem we face is absolutely social rather than natural. We now live under a cult of sustainability, a social and political framework which says that we should never overhaul what exists and should instead make do with the world as it is. The idea of sustainability is anti-exploration, anti-experimentation, anti-risk – all the qualities we need if we are going to make the kind of breakthroughs that earlier generations made with coal and uranium and other resources. In contrast to the past, today human society is accommodating to social limitations, and accepting the idea that they are natural, rather than trying to break through them. The Malthusian mindset is winning, and that is a tragedy for all of us.
But the truth, as history shows us, is that population is not the only variable. Resources are a variable, too. So is mankind’s vision, determination, and ability to rethink and tackle problems. These things grow and change just as population does. Malthusians’ mathematics doesn’t add up, because their social pessimism means that they fail to factor in possibly the most important and decisive variable of all: mankind’s ingenuity.
It seems very clear to me that today, still, the main problem we face is absolutely social rather than natural. We now live under a cult of sustainability, a social and political framework which says that we should never overhaul what exists and should instead make do with the world as it is. The idea of sustainability is anti-exploration, anti-experimentation, anti-risk – all the qualities we need if we are going to make the kind of breakthroughs that earlier generations made with coal and uranium and other resources. In contrast to the past, today human society is accommodating to social limitations, and accepting the idea that they are natural, rather than trying to break through them. The Malthusian mindset is winning, and that is a tragedy for all of us.
For some reason, I find that the "lump of labor" fallacy comes to mind. i.e. There are only so many profitable activities to perform, and we are running out of these activities.
We have to be careful, though, not to overstate the case and I think some in the 'Republican/mercantilist' camp indeed do. The Earth does have a carrying capacity, even for humans. The difference between the carrying capacity for humans and the carrying capacity for other animals is that we can actually increase the carrying capacity of our environment. It must be acknowledged that, given the infrastructure, technology, etc. that we have, only so many mouths can be fed. To fail to acknowledge this is invalidating.
Hoppe has given a very important lecture in 2009, entitled "From the Malthusian Trap to the Industrial Revolution". Personally, I think he's breaking new ground.
Here's a summary of what he has to say about the Malthusian argument:
There are three components to increasing wealth:
1. Capital accumulation 2. Participating in the division of labor 3. Population control, that is, maintaining the optimum population size
For part 3, he says this:
The Law of Returns in its most general and abstract form states that, for any combination of two or more production factors, there exists an optimum combination such that any deviation from this combination involves material waste or efficiency losses.
Applied to the production factors of land and labor, this implies that with a continual increase in population where land and technology are fixed, a point will be reached where physical output per labor input is maximized. This point marks the optimum population size. If the population were to increase beyond this point, income per head will fall. Income per head would also be less if the population were to fall below this point because the division of labor would shrink with an accompanying efficiency loss. To maintain optimum income, the population must not grow but remain stationary. The only way for the population to grow is through employment of technological innovation or taking more or better land into use.
I think that pretty much puts the whole debate to rest.
Clayton -
Yes, agree with Clayton.
Cannan in 1914 identified the point of optimal population given resources and technology with diminishing returns. Increasing returns is when fixed capital does not have enough labour allocated to it yet: thus
“If population is not large enough to bring all industry up to this point, returns [per additional labouring person] will be less than they might be, and the remedy is increase of population; if, on the other hand, population is so great that the point has been passed, returns [per additional labouring person] are again less than they might be, and the remedy is decrease of population. It is very important not to fall into the error of supposing that the point of maximum return remains permanently fixed… the point [of maximum returns] is perpetually being altered by the progress of knowledge” (Cannan 1914:69).
But generally, every article like GiantJoe posted is very useful to point out to environmentalists that resources are only as finite as a technology makes them.
this columnist grossly misunderstands malthus and this leads him to inadequately address the concerns of "modern malthusians".
Thomas Malthus himself, the messiah of modern-day Malthusianism, argued in the early 1800s that food production wouldn’t be able to keep pace with human reproduction, and as a result there would be ‘epidemics, pestilence and plagues’ that would sweep off millions of people. Yet in his era, there were only 980million people on Earth – today there are more than that in China alone and they all have food to eat. Malthus’s problem was that he also saw natural limits where in fact there were social limits. His fundamental pessimism meant he considered it impossible for mankind to develop beyond a certain, nature-enforced point. And yet, shortly after he made his population pronouncements, through the industrial revolution and various social revolutions, mankind did overcome many social limitations and found new ways to make food and deliver it to people around the globe.
contrary to this columnist's impression, malthus actually did have eyes and realized that technological change was possible even in food production. but what malthus predicted was that these improvements would lead to only temporary improvements in the standard of living that would eventually be erroded by a growing populations that reduce living standards back to their pre-technological advancement point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/parente/Cagliari/Chapter_Malthusian_Model.pdf
by focusing on what he believes is a bottomless well of human ingenuity this columnist totally misses the point about what is so special about the growth the western world have experienced over the past 200 years.
since the industrial revolution, technological advancement has outpaced the growing population. very lucky for us, but how do we know that technological change won't eventually slow down and the population growth won't errode the gain in living standards that we have enjoyed like it has every other time in our 300,000 year history as a species? simply put, malthusians have history on their side and the columnist shockingly doesn't realize it.
the best way to answer modern malthusians is to remind them of what bob dylan said. things have changed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
I think that was the most important point, and I believe that's the message most people would get out of the article.
I don't follow you; if not "the bottomless well of human ingenuity" what is so special about the growth of the western world over the past 200 years?
The Neolithic Revolution didn't happen?
rising living standards combined with a falling birth rate for the first time in history. the demographic transition is actually what makes the industrialized era different than every other era of technological innovation and economic growth.
and that is actually the best and most appropriate response to neo-malthusians
yes it did.
growing living standards combined with a falling birth rate for the first time in history. the demographic transition is actually what makes the industrialized era different than every other era of technological innovation and economic growth.
My mistake, your use of the term "growth" to describe a world with falling birth rates simply confused me. However, the falling birth rates are usually considered to be a consequence of the technological innovation and economic growth.
However, the falling birth rates are usually considered to be a consequence of the technological innovation and economic growth.
yes it is.
Then there goes 30,000 years of eroded gains in living standards thing, as the human population density became far greater than that of the previous hunter-gather level yet living standards increased as well. (Unless the last 10,000 years have just been luck as well!)
i can't say i've seen empirical evidence to support that. in fact, what evidence we do have might suggest the opposite. for example, average height can be one measure of living standards because of its dependence on nutrition and overall health actually *fell* after the neolithic revolution.
but let me know if you have seen anything else.
i can't say i've seen empirical evidence to support that fact. in fact, what evidence we do have might suggest the opposite. for example, average height can be one measure of living standards because of its dependence on nutrition and overall health actually *fell* after the neolithic revolution.
is it obvious that on average these people had better access to food and other goods? i don't think so. if one did have better access to food after the neolithic revolution, then improved nutrition would have resulted in greater stature (height) which as i mentioned before was not the case. maybe creating a dependable food supply is more complicated than one might thing (i.e. prehistoric farming wasn't as easy or as reliable as it looks from the 21st century)?
in any case, if you want to say that how we should interpret the decline in height after the neolithic revolution is open to debate i am totally cool with that.
but that still leaves us without empirical evidence that living standards were dramatically improved during this period.
now, before we get caught in a google quest for the "truth" behind human living standards after the neolithic revolution, i don't think anyone signed up that debate (i know did not). so let me steer us back to my original point which was that the primary cause for Malthusian pessimism (the fear of a growing population in response to economic growth) is observably not coming true (western birth rates are falling, population size is leveling off and in some countries even declining). i think that is really as far as we need to take this.
thanks for the pleasent convo!
Just my comment on this.
Using something up means not being able to change it back.
What we can't change to what changes over time. Resources become trash. But trash can become resources. It is a mistake to see the amount of resources as inevitably finite. An innovation could mean that something which was useless is now useful. We could run out of oil, but learn how to use its byproducts in the same way.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
is it obvious that on average these people had better access to food and other goods? i don't think so. if one did have better access to food after the neolithic revolution, then improved nutrition would have resulted in greater stature (height) which as i mentioned before was not the case.
Not at all. Access to food definitely does not imply access to improved nutrition, it means nothing more than subsistance. (Just look at how many people live off of "fast food" today)
but that still leaves us without empirical evidence that living standards were dramatically improved during this period. beyond the fact that it just "seems obvious".
Did the population not increase dramatically? (Also, I don't recall saying that the standards "dramatically" improved, but interpret it as you wish)
so let me steer us back to my original point which was that the primary cause for Malthusian pessimism (the fear of a growing population in response to economic growth) is observably not coming true (western birth rates are falling, population size is leveling off and in some countries even declining). i think that is really as far as we need to take it.
That would take away from any point contention though
Giant Joe, you should check out Peter Thiel, he has some interesting ideas related to technological growth.
Yes, the Earth is finite. Eventually, there will be so many human beings that they will not all fit on its surface, even with the tallest skyscrapers and deepest tunnels we can build. Eventually, we will use all of the natural resources in the solar system and require every bit of the Sun's energy to live. Eventually, the total of human body mass will contain more matter than currently exists in the solar system.
The question is, do we respond to these eventualities with hopeless, reactionary fear, or do we also realize that somewhere in that unimaginably vast future well of human creativity is the key to getting off this rock and away from this star and expanding into the rest of the Universe?
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Just my comment on this. Using something up means not being able to change it back. What we can't change to what changes over time. Resources become trash. But trash can become resources. It is a mistake to see the amount of resources as inevitably finite. An innovation could mean that something which was useless is now useful. We could run out of oil, but learn how to use its byproducts in the same way.
Yes, re-use can make previous unvaluable things valuable. However, we know from basic physics that, in the long run, even re-use must be a losing battle. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the human economy as much as it does to a steam engine. Entropy of a closed system is non-decreasing.
Eventually, the total of human body mass will contain more matter than currently exists in the solar system.
Huh??
Do you think human population will stop growing at some point?
Humans mass, based upon the average size of a human, is about 50,000,000,000 kg. The mass of the Solar System is estimated to be about 1.992 x 1030 kg. Which means (if my math is right) that at a rate of doubling human population (and hence mass) every 32 years, humans will contain an amount of matter equal to the mass of the Solar System in their bodies in just over 20,000 years.
Obviously, that's not going to happen. We're not going to consume the Sun, and we have to have some rock left to stand on. And that also assumes that the rate of population growth will continue for 20,000 years into the future, which is unlikely. But nevertheless, if we stayed here in the Solar System for 20,000 years we would run into a situation in which we begin to run out of useable matter - not just food - because the actual body mass of humans begins to contain most of the matter. Either poulation growth would have to stop, or we'd have to leave. Personally, I'd prefer the latter. But of course I'll be dead by then so it won't matter (pun not intended).
Clayton: Yes, re-use can make previous unvaluable things valuable. However, we know from basic physics that, in the long run, even re-use must be a losing battle. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the human economy as much as it does to a steam engine. Entropy of a closed system is non-decreasing.
Can you explain?
Sorry, I am clueless when it comes to physics.
Thakn you. If I don't check that out today, I'll check it out tomorrow. I've seen him conduct some interviews and I've been impressed.
I think the original author's intent was to mention that we have more (potential) resources than what many think. But by any physical measure, it is true that the Earth is finite. With the current understanding of what resources are and what we will need, you are right. I don't see these limitations being such a large problem in our lifetimes that it would make our living conditions unbearable or catastrophic. I'm more convinced that people's fear of this happening is a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that fear of running out of resources/space will lead to violence and make living conditions unberable.
Only 4 centuries ago and more recently, have we made use of and better understood electricity. To most people before that time, it would have been incomprehensible or magic. We were then able to use kinetic energy and convert it to electric energy. Then we were able to turn light into useful energy. Then we were able to split atoms and find energy. We might be able to split smaller particles, or invent new forms of energy, or discover some new aspect of physics that will make resources much more abundant, and possibly make some of them, like electricity, superabundant.
What I'm saying is that with new technology and better understanding of the universe, those limits you mention might be overcome or become moot in the distant future. Heck, people with pacemakers are technically cyborgs already. Within the next century, we'll probably have an upper-class of people who are much closer to our science-fiction fantasies of cyborgs. Who knows where human needs and identity will go from there?
...
And technological development fits where?
Clayton: Yes, re-use can make previous unvaluable things valuable. However, we know from basic physics that, in the long run, even re-use must be a losing battle. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to the human economy as much as it does to a steam engine. Entropy of a closed system is non-decreasing. Can you explain? Sorry, I am clueless when it comes to physics.
Sure. Thermodynamics is the subject of physics concerned with the study of heat engines. A heat engine is an idealized version of the kinds of real engines with which we are all familiar - steam engines, car engines, jet engines, rocket engines, etc. There are certain fundamental limits that apply to heat engines. The Carnot limit expresses the maximum possible achievable efficiency that an engine can attain. This limit has nothing to do with rust or lubrication or any "flaw" of real, physical engines - it is derived from fundamental principles and expresses a theoretical limit.
The second law of thermodynamics is, in fact, responsible for the fact that heat engines can never attain 100% efficiency, even in theory. The second law of thermodynamics (2LoT) says that "disorder always increases" which, when applied to heated gases used in heat engine cycles, entails that you cannot achieve 100% efficiency from a heat engine (here's why).
Biological organisms are heat engines from the point of view of thermodynamics - they take input heat, convert some of it to work and the rest to waste heat. But two biological organisms also constitute a heat engine, composed of two heat engines. The two organisms - taken together - are constrained by the same laws of thermodynamics as each organism individually. Using and inductive argument, this can be extended to every living thing on the planet. All living things - taken together - are a heat engine (I didn't think this up, read Eric Beinhoffer's book Origin of Wealth). The human economy manifests in human action, which physicists would view as work. The whole thing takes in heat, converts some of it to work, and expends the rest as waste heat (pollution).
Pollution, then, is equivalent to the exhaust coming out of your car's engine (or the smoke-stack on a steam engine). You might be able to build a more efficient engine by recycling the exhaust and re-using those hot gases to squeeze more useful work out of the engine. However, the 2LoT tells us that - at some point (specifically, at the Carnot limit) - this becomes a losing proposition. Re-use of disposed goods is equivalent to recycling the exhaust from your car's engine. You may be able to make things more efficient in this way but, at some point, it must become a losing proposition. If it weren't, the 2LoT would be false and it would be possible to build a 100% efficient engine (perpetual motion machine).
Hope that helps, let me know if you have questions.
Capital accumulation. Watch the lecture.
Clayton: We have to be careful, though, not to overstate the case and I think some in the 'Republican/mercantilist' camp indeed do. The Earth does have a carrying capacity, even for humans. The difference between the carrying capacity for humans and the carrying capacity for other animals is that we can actually increase the carrying capacity of our environment. It must be acknowledged that, given the infrastructure, technology, etc. that we have, only so many mouths can be fed. To fail to acknowledge this is invalidating. Hoppe has given a very important lecture in 2009, entitled "From the Malthusian Trap to the Industrial Revolution". Personally, I think he's breaking new ground. Here's a summary of what he has to say about the Malthusian argument: There are three components to increasing wealth: 1. Capital accumulation 2. Participating in the division of labor 3. Population control, that is, maintaining the optimum population size For part 3, he says this: The Law of Returns in its most general and abstract form states that, for any combination of two or more production factors, there exists an optimum combination such that any deviation from this combination involves material waste or efficiency losses. Applied to the production factors of land and labor, this implies that with a continual increase in population where land and technology are fixed, a point will be reached where physical output per labor input is maximized. This point marks the optimum population size. If the population were to increase beyond this point, income per head will fall. Income per head would also be less if the population were to fall below this point because the division of labor would shrink with an accompanying efficiency loss. To maintain optimum income, the population must not grow but remain stationary. The only way for the population to grow is through employment of technological innovation or taking more or better land into use. I think that pretty much puts the whole debate to rest. Clayton -
That is all perfectly true, but it's not breaking new ground. Mises covered all of the above.