tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post7678480255984041481..comments2024-03-22T11:34:45.165+01:00Comments on taw's blog: Why Malthusianism refuses to dietawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-1551161071677270482009-11-07T12:44:37.942+01:002009-11-07T12:44:37.942+01:00Nahhh, I think he has a point here, why in hell wo...Nahhh, I think he has a point here, why in hell would have famines when your population declined and didn't recover right away? Well I guess the farms could be abandoned.... but still.... just those few data points are rather suspicious.<br /><br />More seriously there is a reason to think it doesn't apply to the modern era at all, namely that once humans gain a small modicum of wealth, +-$2000 is about enough already, they naturally drop reproduction below self sustaining levels. Of course there are reasons why it happens at about that level. And it isn't the actual money itself, but it's an easy way to keep track.<br /><br />But basically what this means is, is that now that the planet is getting more wealthy the population is slowing down in growth and by 2050 we might be already flat level, which means you have a population level completely independent of food supply. That level isn't even catastrophic, because it's easy to see with our massive meat uptake that there is a fair amount of reserve food supply still available and we could always use more expensive investments like greenhouses to further increase returns as well. <br /><br />So regardless if it was true in the 18th century and past, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this trend is going to continue in the future, as it seems like we've entered a different population control regime now.Quickshotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-57118847358084977532009-11-06T21:33:21.035+01:002009-11-06T21:33:21.035+01:00With all due respect, you have not even approached...With all due respect, you have not even approached even denting Clark's (and other economic historians) case…<br /><br />If you haven't read "Farewell to Alms" you should, it's as relevant or greater than Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations", even if you disagree with the author's research and/or hypothesis…Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-84320715406159300812009-11-04T09:47:09.245+01:002009-11-04T09:47:09.245+01:00Medieval Europe did not happen in the last 200 yea...Medieval Europe did not happen in the last 200 years. Massive demographic shifts during that time are all extremely well documented and there's nothing anecdotal about them. There's also wide and well documented variation in human lifespans, and other quality of life measures over historical times.<br /><br />Looking at caloric intake, wages etc. is completely ass-backwards. These would be the same with and without Malthusian hypothesis, which states that population is determined by capacity of food production. This is trivially and provably false. Food especially, as there's very little variation in demand per capita.<br /><br />People were mostly poor in most (but not all) historical eras due to the same reasons that Irish starved to death during potato blight time - those in power didn't care about them at all. There's no evidence whatsoever it had anything to do with agricultural capacity.tawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-38923797535511243212009-11-03T23:23:59.141+01:002009-11-03T23:23:59.141+01:00Yes I read your post and most of your data cites a...Yes I read your post and most of your data cites are post industrial-revolution (after 1800) and pre-1800 references are all anecdotal compared to Clark's exhaustive data dump. Clark goes through English records predating 1800, also proffers a gauge of technology, per capita caloric intake, wages, etc.… Basically, before 1800, state of average person was not much different than times of antiquity. <br /><br />After 1800, indeed, Malthus theory crumbles.<br /><br />But for except the last 2 centuries, it's been illustrated by Clark and other economic historians to be close to spot on.<br /><br />And my question still stands: can we assume that technological progress that deprecated Malthus in the 19th and 20th centuries is a given for centuries forward?Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-40132650443066089072009-11-03T02:17:11.540+01:002009-11-03T02:17:11.540+01:00Naum: Have you read this post? There's a long ...Naum: Have you read this post? There's a long list of arguments why Malthus was historically wrong.tawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-58634175830898576162009-11-02T21:08:42.905+01:002009-11-02T21:08:42.905+01:00Economic historian Gregory Clark — author of the e...Economic historian Gregory Clark — author of the excellent **A Farewell to Alms** would disagree with your assessment here — until 1800, Malthus absolutely was correct.<br /><br />Clark illustrates with charts and data that Malthus was right about most of human history —excepting the last 2 centuries of civilization history: living standards basically did not improve from the age of antiquity to the age of Louis XIV, because the little technology gains were swallowed up by population pressure. <br /><br />Not until the industrial revolution did the world break free of Malthus model.<br /><br />But what's to say that the last 2 centuries are not just an anomaly? Or is it just a given that that cord has been broken forever?Naumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06741963276339044331noreply@blogger.com