Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Malthus wasn't privy to the present day realities that would have drastically changed his thinking with regard to his notions of population and agriculture. The introduction of human labor replacement technology has also thrown a curve ball for old Tom's followers to contemplate, we are in some trouble already on that score, and never mind the fact of our food chain being a reflection of that same techno dilemma of too many unemployed in a world of food surplus. A surplus of food and housing in a society that can't afford either on the scale we once had. Witness the huge outcry of the higher minimum wage disputes here on CD, some are condemning it's coming as a thing equal to the end times, how will they respond to the thought of paying Americans for not working?
We have a strange relationship with technology in America, on the one hand it's often viewed as a savior of sorts, but on the other it is seen as a kind of insidious devil. The truth is that we haven't come far enough in our techno advances to see the entire effect of it's presence, the long held belief in it's power to ameliorate all of our most pressing problems just isn't materializing as the promised dream it's most ardent supporters marketed it as. Paul and Ann Ehrlich wrote extensively about the impact of population on resources, in their works lies the crux of what we will face as technology begins to fail us as we look for techno solutions to our social problems. Those problems will need to be addressed not by technology but moreover it's ability to produce residual wealth, and it's that residual money that will need to be harnessed for our attempts to create a better society.
If we were to utilize all technologies in a way that was consistent with a desire to produce more of everything, and have that pile of goods represent a better spread of well being, we would automatically have a better balance of benefit as an undeniable component of technology. Sadly, it aint gonna happen just for the reasons we see everyday here in the posts of those who want the techno spoils to be a proprietary thing that benefits the minority at the expense of the majority. In other words, Malthus didn't see the inevitable economic harnessing of tech as something that would cause many to live in his world of catastrophic conditions while many were enjoying the fruits of that lopsided construct. We are not ALL in this together any longer.
If we were to utilize all technologies in a way that was consistent with a desire to produce more of everything, and have that pile of goods represent a better spread of well being, we would automatically have a better balance of benefit as an undeniable component of technology. Sadly, it aint gonna happen just for the reasons we see everyday here in the posts of those who want the techno spoils to be a proprietary thing that benefits the minority at the expense of the majority. In other words, Malthus didn't see the inevitable economic harnessing of tech as something that would cause many to live in his world of catastrophic conditions while many were enjoying the fruits of that lopsided construct. We are not ALL in this together any longer.
This is nonsense. Without intellectual property law and the protections given to the creators of intellectual property, R&D investment would grind to a halt. You're not going to invest millions or billions only to have someone immediately copy it and put you out of business.
Rich people pay taxes. That's what props up the unwashed masses. The capital provided by those rich people is what is invested to keep things moving forwards.
Malthus said we were all going to starve to death. Other than in Africa where nobody gives a flying F, that isn't ever going to happen in the world. People who don't contribute in the United States are given a standard of living that puts them above the median household income in the world. Sure, they don't live in a luxury home and they don't drive a luxury car but they're not freezing to death or starving and they receive basic medical care.
...and we've never been "ALL in this together". People are not and have never been equal.
This is nonsense. Without intellectual property law and the protections given to the creators of intellectual property, R&D investment would grind to a halt. You're not going to invest millions or billions only to have someone immediately copy it and put you out of business.
Rich people pay taxes. That's what props up the unwashed masses. The capital provided by those rich people is what is invested to keep things moving forwards.
Malthus said we were all going to starve to death. Other than in Africa where nobody gives a flying F, that isn't ever going to happen in the world. People who don't contribute in the United States are given a standard of living that puts them above the median household income in the world. Sure, they don't live in a luxury home and they don't drive a luxury car but they're not freezing to death or starving and they receive basic medical care.
...and we've never been "ALL in this together". People are not and have never been equal.
Geoff, as one of the defenders of the faith here on CD you can't be expected to have any other view than the one you possess. What has become proprietary is the monetary residual effect of technology, not the technology itself, polish your reading skills man, I simply was pointing at "the spoils"....The MUNNNY..
For starters, there is mass media growth graph overexposed onto the graph you posted, OP. They are technically identical. Hence it looks like media growth and "population growth" went hand in hand.
Reason I put population growth into "" "" is because I do not believe those data are actually true. There was no logical reason for that population explosion. Historically, population growth was always high in what is now called "3rd world". Same countries historically have extremely high mortality, so even should they present with birth rate say 4, mortality rate is closing on it very fast.
I honestly believe that all the billions claimed are fake number. Simple observation shows millions of acres of barren land that actually needs to be populated.
Besides, 6 billion people could have been comfortably placed into the land size of Texas - and with 300 sf of space per person in addition.
Entire doomsday of people choking upon themselves from over population simply does not make common sense.
Geoff, as one of the defenders of the faith here on CD you can't be expected to have any other view than the one you possess. What has become proprietary is the monetary residual effect of technology, not the technology itself, polish your reading skills man, I simply was pointing at "the spoils"....The MUNNNY..
So Thomas Edison died a pauper? or George Eastman (Kodak)? or Chester Carlson (the Xerox patent)? Edwin Land (Polaroid)? or An Wang (Wang word processors)? or Ken Olsen (minicomputers at Digital Equipment Corporation)?
If you go Full Bernie and deny people the right to profit from their intellectual property, people will stop creating intellectual property in the United States.
So Thomas Edison died a pauper? or George Eastman (Kodak)? or Chester Carlson (the Xerox patent)? Edwin Land (Polaroid)? or An Wang (Wang word processors)? or Ken Olsen (minicomputers at Digital Equipment Corporation)?
If you go Full Bernie and deny people the right to profit from their intellectual property, people will stop creating intellectual property in the United States.
And we both know this isn't the real concern here, no one is stopping anyone from making a profit, least of all the poor. This fear of sharing is what drives the society to a deeper trough of neglect, and that neglect will come home to roost sooner than most suspect.
This taking things to an illogical conclusion is disingenuous at best and at it's worst ends up forcing one to defend, not their words, but the words put in ones mouth by those they disagree with. Technology has an infinitely greater laboring efficiency and thus will continue to increase it's respective ROI in ways we haven't really acknowledged yet.
"Full Bernie", I'm assuming this is a term that reflects your political fears as they relate to economics, regardless, technology has no "favorite" economic construct, it is this fact that is omnipresent in most discussions of all that is implied in a greatly expanded techno laboring paradigm. Because of it's phenomenal abilities it allows for a view of a greater spread of well being at a small cost of sharing. We have that opportunity, but if we are overly concerned about the rights of one group over another we will see technology as a creator of an army of the underclass, people will always create things, for better or worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
