[aww_dang]

Malthus was proven wrong by productivity gains. England did not starve due to a rising population, but went on to become an industrialized nation. Increased population allows for greater specialization.

This only holds true as long as free markets are allowed to operate somewhat unimpeded. Typically the Malthusian position is one that advocates excessive government intervention. When taken to an extreme this can make the Malthusian catastrophe self-fulfilling as the market can longer allocate resources efficiently.

[BlueTemplar]

How exactly was he proven wrong ? The rising productivity gains are built-in in his model.

Where do you get the idea that he "advocated excessive government intervention" ? He was instead criticized for his anti-welfare stance ! Or do you think that "educating women" is "excessive government intervention" ?!?

[aww_dang]

There was not mass starvation as I clearly stated.

The Malthusian position is one of finite resources and productivity. Peak oil, population control and assorted doomsaying. It would not be unreasonable to characterize the one child policy as excessive.

Your comment attempts to misconstrue cherry picked historical facts against the broader definition of Malthusianism.

It becomes offensive when you attempt to inject identity politics into what had been previously a mostly polite discussion. I'm afraid there is nothing for us to discuss.

[BlueTemplar]

A "broader definition" that you haven't even bothered to give ? Equating Malthus and "malthusians"? Straw-manning much ? What about the Irish Great Famine (shortly after Malthus' death). And I see that it's often blamed on laissez-faire politics ?

Where did you get "identity politics" from ?

Do you realize that peak oil denial is a deeply anti-science position ? (Unless you're thinking of abiotic oil?)

[ericmay]

> Increased population allows for greater specialization

Can you elaborate on this point w.r.t the OP you’re discussing?

[mytailorisrich]

IMO, he puts forward a purely economic approach about how to produce enough to ensure a growing population remains materially prosperous.

This blissfully ignores the key issue under discussion: Our impact on the planet in doing so.

[paganel]

> This blissfully ignores the key issue under discussion: Our impact on the planet in doing so.

It still baffles me that we choose to ignore externalities in part because we cannot attach any “rational” prices to them, it’s like they don’t even exist to us as long as we cannot put them in an exact Excel sheet with a well-defined value.

[aww_dang]

In terms of political economy we could easily tabulate the money paid to lobbyists. For example, it is much cheaper for a coal fired power plant to pay politicians to implement their desired environmental regulations.

Instead of being liable for damages caused by their pollution, these energy producers can simply claim that they are within the regulations set forth by the EPA. The price discovery mechanism has been hampered by the victim's inability to collect damages.

[aww_dang]

Yes, but it would help if you could be a bit more specific. I fear this reply may be too general.

The post above suggests that we cannot have a sustainable, prosperous growing population. A rising population allows for greater specialization in that the general population can rely on specialists (auto mechanics, computer programmers, bakers, farmers) to handle their respective field of expertise. You do not need to farm wheat to eat bread in a modern society. Bread is lined up waiting for you in the nearest market. You can go online and have your groceries delivered by a truck.

[nickik]

His point is that you need less human labor to produce the same amount of stuff. Thus with a growing population you have ever increasing productivity, helping you offset potential negative effects of population.

That is just one of the effect that work together to over and over again prove the 'over-population' crowd wrong.

[ericmay]

> Thus with a growing population you have ever increasing productivity, helping you offset potential negative effects of population.

I’m not sure I follow. How will we prevent over-fishing for example? Traffic? Deforestation? I think you can blunt the effects of overpopulation for humans (we probably won’t starve) but at what cost?

How will specialization affect human health and happiness? Are people who specialize in a very specific thing more happpy (or less) than people who do general tasks?

I would argue even right now we have plenty of people without meaningful work - how will increases in population improve that?

[aww_dang]

Fish farms, new more efficient methods of transport and agroforestry.

Consider all of the time saved with today's technological advancements and specialization. Years ago peasants would lay idle on near starvation diets for most of the winter. During the growing season they would work from dawn until dusk, just to enjoy a sustenance lifestyle.

So while work may not be as meaningful as we would like, our leisure time is increasing. Mass automation will likely provide even greater leisure and cheaper goods.

All of this ignores the rampant inflation of the money supply, which is silently taxing our leisure, labor and consumption. There are many who would like to increase this and would do so by indulging the fears you listed at the top of your comment.

[ericmay]

Respectfully, I disagree with the spirit of all of this excluding how peasants lived. I think saying "tech will solve it and we'll have great lives where everything is cheap" is equivalent to saying Jesus will come save us all.

[pixl97]

For every problem technology solves, 2 harder to solve problems are created.

[HPsquared]

The essence of technology is to reduce prices.

[nickik]

Specialization is not an end to end solution. It is one specific effect where increase population gets you higher per-item efficiency. There are many other such effects we could be talking about.

> I’m not sure I follow. How will we prevent over-fishing for example?

Fishing is increasingly done in fishing farms. The scale of such farms in the open sea is only worth it for very large markets.

However for most fishing, the solution is actually property rights for a sustainable amount of fish and that is already done in many places.

> Deforestation?

Forest were actually smaller in the middle ages. Modern markets/technology leads to the ability to regrow forest. All the Western world is now reforesting, because proper forestry is actually a sustainable business, no need to deforest.

> I think you can blunt the effects of overpopulation for humans (we probably won’t starve) but at what cost?

The cost are really not that high. High traffic in the densest places is really not that high a cost. Our rivers are cleaner, our food higher quality, our food is cheaper, wild life is actually making a comeback in the Western world, the amount of commercial land use is decreasing, air quality is increasing and the list goes on.

> I would argue even right now we have plenty of people without meaningful work - how will increases in population improve that?

If people have work has far more to do with the political conditions of specific countries then with overpopulation as a whole. Historically places with high population growth and high overall economic growth correlate very well, more people creates lots of demands and new problems that need to be solved. There is really no evidence at all that population increase leads to increase in people out of work.