Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Brave words, James.

Like I said, I only know very little about him, mostly what he was able to contribute that didn't get shot down. Biology/science textbooks really don't go into much detail beyond the bit about scarcity affects population.

[ECrownofFire]

About the airplane analogy, he would be the guy hanging onto the plane attempting to sabotage it.

Wasn't Malthus some guy that supported eugenics? Or am I thinking of someone else? I think he was the guy that theorized something about the food supply not being able to keep up with the population or something like that. I could be thinking of someone else though.

[Rolan7]

Brave words, James.

Like I said, I only know very little about him, mostly what he was able to contribute that didn't get shot down. Biology/science textbooks really don't go into much detail beyond the bit about scarcity affects population.

I'm not sure I've heard of him before, I'm certainly no expert.  Maybe the guy was crazy.
But the world is overpopulated and people are starving, right now, as a result.  And yet we're still reproducing exponentially.  It's not sustainable, and ignoring that fact will kill more people than Malthus ever suggested.  I assume based on all the hate that he was suggesting killing poor people, and not something sane like supplying contraception.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Malthusianism supports not sending aid to areas that need aid because then more people will be born and you will have to exponentally support them as well untill the system collapses from overstreched resources. I'm not sure if that's a viable situation or not, but inevitable problems in the future are no reason to let people starve, conseqences be damned.

Neo-Malthusianism supports compulsory sterilization of humans, and in extreme cases, elimination of extra population. That's just crazy, in my opinion.

The New Tribalists (this guy) support dismantling civilization for the good of both Earth and humanity. They were mostly spurned on by Danial Quinn's Ishmael, which advocated the concept by way of a telapathic gorrila. Yes, really.

[ECrownofFire]

Malthusianism supports not sending aid to areas that need aid because then more people will be born and you will have to exponentally support them as well untill the system collapses from overstreched resources. I'm not sure if that's a viable situation or not, but inevitable problems in the future are no reason to let people starve, conseqences be damned.

Neo-Malthusianism supports compulsory sterilization of humans, and in extreme cases, elimination of extra population. That's just crazy, in my opinion.

The New Tribalists (this guy) support dismantling civilization for the good of both Earth and humanity. They were mostly spurned on by Danial Quinn's Ishmael, which advocated the concept by way of a telapathic gorrila. Yes, really.

In other words, eugenics with more crazy.

[Aqizzar]

Eugenics is controlling breeding for the purpose of results with desired traits.

That's more like controlling breeding for the purpose of no results, as such.

I wonder if DC is going to have any kind of mention of this on their actual airtime.

[Euld]

The New Tribalists (this guy) support dismantling civilization for the good of both Earth and humanity. They were mostly spurned on by Danial Quinn's Ishmael, which advocated the concept by way of a telapathic gorrila. Yes, really.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Gorilla Grod?

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Brave words, James.

Like I said, I only know very little about him, mostly what he was able to contribute that didn't get shot down. Biology/science textbooks really don't go into much detail beyond the bit about scarcity affects population.

I'm not sure I've heard of him before, I'm certainly no expert.  Maybe the guy was crazy.
But the world is overpopulated and people are starving, right now, as a result.  And yet we're still reproducing exponentially.  It's not sustainable, and ignoring that fact will kill more people than Malthus ever suggested.  I assume based on all the hate that he was suggesting killing poor people, and not something sane like supplying contraception.

Technically, the world is less overpopulated as time progresses, because technology means that less land can support more people, which is all "overpopulated" refers to (and which, ironically, makes the most overpopulated parts of the world affluent low-density areas, where people reproduce below the rate of replenishment). A lower percentage of the population is starving, and historically improving the quality of life (with such things as safer food and medical supplies) is also correlated with decreasing population growth. Which basically makes everything Malthus said completely false (aside from his observation that population growth is exponential under unrestrained conditions, without realizing that conditions are more complicated than "is there enough food?").

[Rolan7]

Brave words, James.

Like I said, I only know very little about him, mostly what he was able to contribute that didn't get shot down. Biology/science textbooks really don't go into much detail beyond the bit about scarcity affects population.

I'm not sure I've heard of him before, I'm certainly no expert.  Maybe the guy was crazy.
But the world is overpopulated and people are starving, right now, as a result.  And yet we're still reproducing exponentially.  It's not sustainable, and ignoring that fact will kill more people than Malthus ever suggested.  I assume based on all the hate that he was suggesting killing poor people, and not something sane like supplying contraception.

Technically, the world is less overpopulated as time progresses, because technology means that less land can support more people, which is all "overpopulated" refers to (and which, ironically, makes the most overpopulated parts of the world affluent low-density areas, where people reproduce below the rate of replenishment). A lower percentage of the population is starving, and historically improving the quality of life (with such things as safer food and medical supplies) is also correlated with decreasing population growth. Which basically makes everything Malthus said completely false (aside from his observation that population growth is exponential under unrestrained conditions, without realizing that conditions are more complicated than "is there enough food?").

I should stop talking because I really haven't studied this at all.  I have heard, though, that the introduction of modern medicine and sanitation is a major reason that the population growth rate is so high in developing nations.  You're also assuming that the benefits of technology will outpace the exponential population growth, which seems optimistic and doomed to eventual failure (or a technological singularity, which would be fun).

[smigenboger]

Why not have a 'no one can check in until someone checks out' plan?

[Josephus]

Brave words, James.

Like I said, I only know very little about him, mostly what he was able to contribute that didn't get shot down. Biology/science textbooks really don't go into much detail beyond the bit about scarcity affects population.

I'm not sure I've heard of him before, I'm certainly no expert.  Maybe the guy was crazy.
But the world is overpopulated and people are starving, right now, as a result.  And yet we're still reproducing exponentially.  It's not sustainable, and ignoring that fact will kill more people than Malthus ever suggested.  I assume based on all the hate that he was suggesting killing poor people, and not something sane like supplying contraception.

Technically, the world is less overpopulated as time progresses, because technology means that less land can support more people, which is all "overpopulated" refers to (and which, ironically, makes the most overpopulated parts of the world affluent low-density areas, where people reproduce below the rate of replenishment). A lower percentage of the population is starving, and historically improving the quality of life (with such things as safer food and medical supplies) is also correlated with decreasing population growth. Which basically makes everything Malthus said completely false (aside from his observation that population growth is exponential under unrestrained conditions, without realizing that conditions are more complicated than "is there enough food?").

I should stop talking because I really haven't studied this at all.  I have heard, though, that the introduction of modern medicine and sanitation is a major reason that the population growth rate is so high in developing nations.  You're also assuming that the benefits of technology will outpace the exponential population growth, which seems optimistic and doomed to eventual failure (or a technological singularity, which would be fun).

The major reason pop growth in developing countries is so high is because we have unprotected sex. A lot of unprotected sex.

[Nikov]

Brave words, James.

Like I said, I only know very little about him, mostly what he was able to contribute that didn't get shot down. Biology/science textbooks really don't go into much detail beyond the bit about scarcity affects population.

I'm not sure I've heard of him before, I'm certainly no expert.  Maybe the guy was crazy.
But the world is overpopulated and people are starving, right now, as a result.  And yet we're still reproducing exponentially.  It's not sustainable, and ignoring that fact will kill more people than Malthus ever suggested.  I assume based on all the hate that he was suggesting killing poor people, and not something sane like supplying contraception.

Technically, the world is less overpopulated as time progresses, because technology means that less land can support more people, which is all "overpopulated" refers to (and which, ironically, makes the most overpopulated parts of the world affluent low-density areas, where people reproduce below the rate of replenishment). A lower percentage of the population is starving, and historically improving the quality of life (with such things as safer food and medical supplies) is also correlated with decreasing population growth. Which basically makes everything Malthus said completely false (aside from his observation that population growth is exponential under unrestrained conditions, without realizing that conditions are more complicated than "is there enough food?").

I should stop talking because I really haven't studied this at all.  I have heard, though, that the introduction of modern medicine and sanitation is a major reason that the population growth rate is so high in developing nations.  You're also assuming that the benefits of technology will outpace the exponential population growth, which seems optimistic and doomed to eventual failure (or a technological singularity, which would be fun).

The major reason pop growth in developing countries is so high is because we have unprotected sex. A lot of unprotected sex.

QFT. Sex - Birth Control = Babies. But nobody has the right to tell others they can't have children. The authority, perhaps, but not the right.

[Phmcw]

I didn't see anything crazy on Malthus French wikipedia page.
Just that overpopulation was bad and should be avoided at all cost.
Isn't that just obvious?

[Sir Pseudonymous]

If that's all it says, then it's shitty and incomplete. Perhaps Malthus wasn't completely insane for his time, but history has proven him to be entirely wrong, so believing in it in this day and age is quite insane.

[Rolan7]

I skimmed the english wiki and didn't see his controversial "solutions".  They might have been there, it's a big article.
Honestly though the "reactions" section seemed to be written by a supporter.  It listed a bunch of "lies" that had been told about him, mainly personal attacks.  I wouldn't be surprised if his abhorrent ideas were downplayed or omitted from the article.