All the talk about world population is fruitless. Again the hubris of man postulating on a 4 billion year old planet. As it always has this planet will kill off all it cannot sustain. Through natural disaster ,famine and disease it will always rebalance itself. Remember 99% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct.
Umm, check the date of the Watt thermal engine. Follow then the adoption of liquid petroleum and the tech that it fuels and you will have your answers. Read Dr Tim Morgan so you can understand that economies are not financial systems, but energy transfer systems in the work he has advanced from the Odoms and Charles ASHall. The only factors are the density of available energy and the ability of the organism to harness it.
Interested in reading Odeds book. I think the point of geography is of vital importance. Thomas Sowell's books on cultures and migrations are a great overview in this area. Sub-Saharan Africa was isolated from other burgeoning nations and sparsely interacted with. A quick look at say, Herodotus and his writing about what he called "Libya" and the prevailing understanding of how much actual continent that was there unexplored is typical for that time frame (BC). Having no control of the Mediterranean waterway and the trade, culture, etc.. that that brings was a big disadvantage. This same case is shown in Amazonian tribes and aborigines who were quite isolated as well.
We have 'evolved' to the point of believing that equity among millions and billions is possible, that one can switch sexes on a whim, and that politicians can control the climate by regulation.
When humans were hunter/gatherers and had to carry everything they owned, there was arguably little inequality. Yet even then, some humans found an abundance of game and flourished, while others starved. Some fought and prevailed while others fought and perished. It is a fine thing to support equality of opportunity. I certainly do. But with respect to equality of outcomes, it's not going to happen unless it's compelled, and none of us want to live in that world. Humans - even from the same country, tribe and even family - react in a variety of ways to the same event. We should work hard for equality of opportunity, but have the respect to get out of people's way as they choose their own unique paths in life.
I entirely share your viewpoint that inequality is an inevitable byproduct of human heterogeneity and the quest ought to be for equality of opportunities. Wage inequality is important in generating the proper economic incentives. Yet, it is quite apparent that excessive wealth inequality adversely affects ‘equality of opportunities’ in society and is therefore harmful for economic efficiency and social cohesiveness. In particular, wealth inequality is associated with inefficient education and investment decisions of the poorer segments of society, adversely affecting the allocation of talents across occupations. Furthermore, it adversely affects social cohesiveness and is associated with civil unrest and therefore loss in productivity.
However, since nations are collective of individuals, unless nations differ systematically in the composition of their population, inequality across nations is not an inevitable byproduct of human heterogeneity. Greater equality across nations is therefore entirely feasible.
Unfortunately, the same welfare state that acts to blunt the most severe effects of such economic efficiency tends to yield clearly dysgenic effects on society as a whole. The successful (higher average IQ) tend to have few children by choice whereas the great unwashed (lower average IQ) gain social and economic benefits for producing children. That's NOT a recipe for success in the long term.
Very true. So how does one adjust the social and economic benefits for producing children? As others have pointed out, when women are educated and when wealth grows, birth rates decline.
Declining birth rates are not necessarily a good thing.
Certainly TFRs in the 5+ range harken back to an age where infant mortality and lack of birth control pretty much kept women pregnant more or less continually until they either died in childbirth, imposed sexless marraiges, or aged out of their reproductive years.
However, TFRs below replacement (2.1) are now routinely encountered in Western (and Westernized) countries around the world. This is a first in historical memory—never have nations survived and prospered with TFRs in the 1.2-1.5 range. People need to ask themselves whether vast armies of HR functionaries and office drone(tte)s are really worth the end of civilization.
Note as well the long-overdue reconsideration of the Sexual Revolution now underway focusing on the effects of freeing women to pursue their innate sexual proclivities. Riding the carousel of "bad boys"—serial dalliances with non-committing alpha males attracted by peak female sexual allure—during what SHOULD be their prime reproductive years thereby destroying their ability to pair bond with an average male, then aging out of the sexual marketplace in their 30s to become rejected and embittered cat ladies with futures of decades alone without family is a bleak and desolate prospect indeed. For all of us.
What about a world population so large that there are insufficient basic resources like food, water, housing, basic health care? Not much room for ideas and creativity under conditions of abject misery and squalor. There is some limit, even if no authority assigns the optimal number. Interesting, from an existential perspective, to hear here the enthusiasm for a boundless expansion of humanity.
That's a fair comment, Carol. It's funny low little talk there is about curbing or managing global population growth, especially by people concerned about global warming, the encroachment of humans on pristine wilderness, etc. Is the subject off limits and I just didn't get the memo?
What? People have talked about curbing the population for decades. From the Malthusians to Paul Ehrlich to Bill Gates and the WEF, the notion of too many people / too few resources is not new ground.
I'm sure you're right. I remember back to the Paul Ehrlich days. I guess I'm not in the right circles these days. Do they have any suggestions for how to reduce global population?
Thank you, both. As a 70 year old my historical perspective is shadowed by on Continent, North America, living and little exposure to Eastern/other models. My life preferences seem to be related to isolation and educational regionalism. I do like to look out into new frameworks. Suggesting Silvīa Tomaskova's works. Shamanism and healing cultures.
Exactly, choices get made which can have long term impact. Look at japan they pivoted in the 1850,s and became the dominant power in Asia in less than 80 years.
Doesn’t Yuval Harari argue in Sapiens that humanity was actually better off on a per capita basis prior to the Agricultural Revolution when we were primarily hunter gatherers? If I recall correctly Harari makes the point that the net effect of the Agricultural Revolution was to increase total food output and allow for the development of much larger societies. But the resulting Malthusian stagnation left the average person no better off compared to the average individual during the hunter gatherer era.
The Industrial Revolution truly was special in allowing us to finally break out of the Malthusian trap. As a non-economist, I’m always amazed by the extent to which people undervalue the importance of technological innovation. Labor is important, but it seems to me that the possibilities of production afforded to labor by technology are what ultimately drive long term growth and prosperity.
In the 1960s, Prof. Alexander Gerschenkron of the Department of Economics at Harvard gave a brilliant graduate course on precisely this topic, the takeoff of modern economic development, its causes and consequences.
“Namely, what is the origin of this vast inequality in the wealth of nations? Why some countries are rich and others are poor, and why much of the inequality that we see across nations today is originated in the past 200 years.”
Geography and luck, mostly. Read Guns, Germs and Steel. This is well-trudged material.
I just ordered Oded’s book The Journey of Humanity and plan to read it shortly. I read Guns, Germs and Steel a while back and although my recollection of the book is currently a bit hazy, I do recall thinking that although the book was filled with interesting facts, I was a bit skeptical of its thesis that geography played a predominant role in determining the wealth of nations, i.e., the North-South orientation of Africa and the Americas and the subsequent range of geographical latitudes placed those regions at a significant developmental disadvantage relative to Eurasia.
I’m sure geography has played some role in the evolution of nations, but personally I feel like Diamond underemphasizes the importance of cultural and human capital and the necessity of good institutions. China during the Mao era was wretchedly poor, but diaspora Chinese were thriving. As noted by many, during those decades Chinese people seemed to be relatively well-off everywhere except in China. I would argue that China’s rapid advances over the past four decades are the result of institutional reform, not luck or geography.
Sowell and others have written about the disproportionate success of market dominant minorities and immigrant groups who seem to be successful no matter where they migrate. Someone like Richard Bicker will no doubt attribute this to differences in group genetics, but rather than rehash the entire nature versus nurture debate I’m happy to refer to the importance of accumulated cultural and human capital. Creating wealth is hard and it seems to me a bit lacking to suggest that its creation is mostly the result of arbitrary caprice, but I could be wrong about that.
You hit on a really key issue. There should be much broader discussion about why some cultures invariably prosper, and what the common denominators are in their success.
China’s geographical connectivity, which led to political centralization, was beneficial in the Middle Ages, providing the region with an economic and technological head start. But it ended up having an adverse effect on the eve of the Industrial Revolution, when competition and cultural fluidity were instrumental in taking advantage of this new technological paradigm.
Since China has now made the transition to modern growth, given the scale of the Chinese economy, its geographical connectivity, political centralization and social cohesiveness may bring China back to the global forefront of technology and prosperity, provided that the incentives to innovate are maintained. Nevertheless, the lack of sufficient diversity in China may limit this process. In this respect, it would be prudent for China to adopt an education curriculum that would foster critical thinking and thus diversity and cross-fertilization of ideas.
Historically, when the pace of technological progress was relatively low, high geographical and political unity, as existed in China, despite its adverse effect on competition and innovation, allows centralized regimes to govern enormous empires efficiently and foster economic growth by establishing the rule of law and investing in public goods. But when technological progress accelerated, geographical fragmentation as existed in Europe, despite their adverse effect on social cohesiveness, facilitated competition and innovations and contributed to the earlier take-off of Europe.
In fact, in contrast to the Diamond hypothesis, empirical evidence shows unambiguosly that differential timing of the onset of the agriculture across the globe has NO impact on the inequality across countries.
The reason for the failure of the Diamond hypothesis: "The first regions to experience the Neolithic (Agricultural) Revolution enjoyed two major benefits – higher agricultural productivity and a technological head start – placing these first-comers at the forefront of the world’s economic development. However, by the dawn of the sixteenth century, as innovative activities shifted from the rural to the urban environment, the economic importance of the agricultural sector – farming – began its gradual decline, while the human-capital-intensive and technologically-based urban sector began to flourish. An earlier onset of the Neolithic Revolution therefore started to generate conflicting effects."
Ultimately, then, the technological head start was counterbalanced by the relative disadvantage of agricultural specialization, and thus the timing of the Neolithic Revolution had a limited impact on economic development in the modern era. [The Journey of Humanity, p211-212]
Jared Diamond is full of shit. Wealth of nations is only tangentially an accident of geography—it's a result of enhanced IQ due to evolutionary pressures on those "up against it" in inhospitable regions and time periods.
There are plenty of non-cognitive cultural and institutional factors that affect national wealth. Genetically similar groups can vary significantly in terms of economic prosperity, i.e., North Korea versus South Korea today or modern-day China versus China during the Mao era.
At best national IQ is a necessary but far from sufficient criterion for economic prosperity.
Is there any serious thought out there that maybe now there are too many people on the planet? What is the point, existentially speaking, of this expanding population?
More people are better, more ideas more creativity and more growth. As the Marian Tupy & Gale Poole book Superabundance shows more population makes resources cheaper.
Serious thought? There is no such thing as "too many people on the planet." Unless, of course, you can put forward a process to determine WHICH people are excess as well as what is to be done with them and the process that keeps producing them. Have at it.
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. Ok 20 billion? Really?? That’s good? Be fruitful and multiply. And why is the human race so great? Other animals have suffered greatly from the proliferation of our particular primate.
Are you a human race traitor? Many species of animals and plants have been improved by human agriculture and science, what have other species done for us except provide nutrition, entertainment and companionship. 20 billion people is unlikely under any reasonable scenario but the earth could sustain that and still have other species flourishing.
“Many species of animals and plants have been improved by human agriculture and science”…”what have other species done for us”. You may have the most impoverished, blinkered ethics of anyone I’ve ever read on this site. Sophomoric, too: “Are you a human race traitor?” Humans have been virtually nothing but a brutally indifferent if not actively sadistic disaster to every other sentient (often very very highly-sentient) species on the planet. In scale and intensity of suffering, it’s hard to think of a single worse thing we have done and so blithely continue to do. For every domesticated dog (the companion animal most humans are most sympathetic to) humans have actually cared for and treated well, there are many more who’ve been mass-produced merely to be used and abused. It was very recently an extremely shallow and pointless trend for clueless humans to walk around with rolls of coyote fur collar which never even touched their bodies or insulated a single body part, on grossly overpriced coats, in very temperate cities…often while out walking dogs. Coyotes who were caught in agonizing pain and utter panic in metal leg traps to either bleed out, or die after chewing off limbs in a desperate effort to return to their young, or wait in agony until some trapper finally appeared to shoot or bludgeon them to death. Solely for a very tacky ridiculous decorative trim. And then there are pigs…Unless you have some sort of directly received religious input which you believe gives you the right to simply wave away the sentience of every other intelligent, socially and emotionally complex animal who has evolved to be and experience life similarly to us in so many ways, your only rationalization is “might makes right”. But, sure, why not see how many potential human lives can be forced onto the planet until it buckles under the obvious strain and there is no arable land - or nature, or wildlife left. An endless number of people will make resources forever abundant and cheap…because someone named Marian Tupy says so. Sounds plausible.
Indeed, as more than half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock, I'd say that our present population is already several times larger than it should be.
"Should" implies there is an ideal population. So what is that number and what is it ideal for? What is the goal of restricting or even rooting for population decline toward that ideal? You say "half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock" as though that explains something. Like we should understand that this stat is a problem. Why is it a problem? I guess I am trying to understand if your concerns are more about the well being of people who might suffer due to overpopulation or of other species and the planet in general.
A mixture of objective and subjective. The objective concern is ecological, and could ultimately be viewed as selfish (i.e. the preservation of just our species). The subjective concerns are a mixture of esthetic (i.e. the preservation of nature) and ethical (the preservation of wildlife). No, I can't convince you that nature and wildlife have intrinsic worth beyond simply keeping humans alive. But I assume that we agree that at least keeping humans safe and healthy is worth something. For that, a lush and robust biosphere is best.
So how would you go about deciding who exactly represents excess "biomass," and just what measures are you prepared to support to achieve the level "it should be" (half of the present population, less if you only go after fatties)? If you're not up for the Soylent Green "solution," how do you propose to deal with those who are NOT on the demographic decline program (hint: look at population projections for Africa, Asia, Europe then speak VERY carefully about your "program.")
If the presumably "green" western democracies tied economic aid to something like rolling birth rates over a period of years to encourage smaller families (and in effect subsidize this), why is this any different to tying financing to the use of renewables? My point is that we have time, and there may be solutions that are beneficial to all. Let's find them.
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
This was an interesting discussion. The phenomenon (escape from Malthusianism) he describes is also discussed in Jonah Goldberg's Suicide of the West, but Jonah has an explanation that focuses more on things like the Scottish enlightenment.
Galor's own explanatory theory is interesting, but not entirely persuasive. It leads me to wonder if there are other causes out there that are the *real* cause of the escape, e.g. changes in religious doctrine. (I am not suggesting that, just giving it as an example of an unexamined possible cause.)
Regional forces such as changes in religious doctrine, can be the catalyst that permitted the transition to occur earlier in some regions of the world and not in others.
But the challenge that “The Journey of Humanity” attempts to tackle is to identify: (i) the universal forces – the wheels of change -- that have operated in each region of the world and brought about the transition from stagnation to growth, and (ii) the “local forces” institutions, culture, religion, geography, and human diversity that have governed the differential pace of this transition across the world regions.
The local forces that you have in mind are fully explored in “The Journey of Humanity” but they are specific to each region. They are not the universal forces. For instance, changes in the religion doctrine, institutions, or cultural orientation in Europe is clearly not the cause of the take off in Latin America. Yet the impact of technological acceleration on the demand for human capital and the onset of the fertility decline is a universal force that has been associated with the transition in each region of the world.
All the talk about world population is fruitless. Again the hubris of man postulating on a 4 billion year old planet. As it always has this planet will kill off all it cannot sustain. Through natural disaster ,famine and disease it will always rebalance itself. Remember 99% of all life that has ever existed is now extinct.
Umm, check the date of the Watt thermal engine. Follow then the adoption of liquid petroleum and the tech that it fuels and you will have your answers. Read Dr Tim Morgan so you can understand that economies are not financial systems, but energy transfer systems in the work he has advanced from the Odoms and Charles ASHall. The only factors are the density of available energy and the ability of the organism to harness it.
Interested in reading Odeds book. I think the point of geography is of vital importance. Thomas Sowell's books on cultures and migrations are a great overview in this area. Sub-Saharan Africa was isolated from other burgeoning nations and sparsely interacted with. A quick look at say, Herodotus and his writing about what he called "Libya" and the prevailing understanding of how much actual continent that was there unexplored is typical for that time frame (BC). Having no control of the Mediterranean waterway and the trade, culture, etc.. that that brings was a big disadvantage. This same case is shown in Amazonian tribes and aborigines who were quite isolated as well.
We have 'evolved' to the point of believing that equity among millions and billions is possible, that one can switch sexes on a whim, and that politicians can control the climate by regulation.
When humans were hunter/gatherers and had to carry everything they owned, there was arguably little inequality. Yet even then, some humans found an abundance of game and flourished, while others starved. Some fought and prevailed while others fought and perished. It is a fine thing to support equality of opportunity. I certainly do. But with respect to equality of outcomes, it's not going to happen unless it's compelled, and none of us want to live in that world. Humans - even from the same country, tribe and even family - react in a variety of ways to the same event. We should work hard for equality of opportunity, but have the respect to get out of people's way as they choose their own unique paths in life.
I entirely share your viewpoint that inequality is an inevitable byproduct of human heterogeneity and the quest ought to be for equality of opportunities. Wage inequality is important in generating the proper economic incentives. Yet, it is quite apparent that excessive wealth inequality adversely affects ‘equality of opportunities’ in society and is therefore harmful for economic efficiency and social cohesiveness. In particular, wealth inequality is associated with inefficient education and investment decisions of the poorer segments of society, adversely affecting the allocation of talents across occupations. Furthermore, it adversely affects social cohesiveness and is associated with civil unrest and therefore loss in productivity.
However, since nations are collective of individuals, unless nations differ systematically in the composition of their population, inequality across nations is not an inevitable byproduct of human heterogeneity. Greater equality across nations is therefore entirely feasible.
Good comments, Karl.
Unfortunately, the same welfare state that acts to blunt the most severe effects of such economic efficiency tends to yield clearly dysgenic effects on society as a whole. The successful (higher average IQ) tend to have few children by choice whereas the great unwashed (lower average IQ) gain social and economic benefits for producing children. That's NOT a recipe for success in the long term.
Very true. So how does one adjust the social and economic benefits for producing children? As others have pointed out, when women are educated and when wealth grows, birth rates decline.
Declining birth rates are not necessarily a good thing.
Certainly TFRs in the 5+ range harken back to an age where infant mortality and lack of birth control pretty much kept women pregnant more or less continually until they either died in childbirth, imposed sexless marraiges, or aged out of their reproductive years.
However, TFRs below replacement (2.1) are now routinely encountered in Western (and Westernized) countries around the world. This is a first in historical memory—never have nations survived and prospered with TFRs in the 1.2-1.5 range. People need to ask themselves whether vast armies of HR functionaries and office drone(tte)s are really worth the end of civilization.
Note as well the long-overdue reconsideration of the Sexual Revolution now underway focusing on the effects of freeing women to pursue their innate sexual proclivities. Riding the carousel of "bad boys"—serial dalliances with non-committing alpha males attracted by peak female sexual allure—during what SHOULD be their prime reproductive years thereby destroying their ability to pair bond with an average male, then aging out of the sexual marketplace in their 30s to become rejected and embittered cat ladies with futures of decades alone without family is a bleak and desolate prospect indeed. For all of us.
What about a world population so large that there are insufficient basic resources like food, water, housing, basic health care? Not much room for ideas and creativity under conditions of abject misery and squalor. There is some limit, even if no authority assigns the optimal number. Interesting, from an existential perspective, to hear here the enthusiasm for a boundless expansion of humanity.
That's a fair comment, Carol. It's funny low little talk there is about curbing or managing global population growth, especially by people concerned about global warming, the encroachment of humans on pristine wilderness, etc. Is the subject off limits and I just didn't get the memo?
What? People have talked about curbing the population for decades. From the Malthusians to Paul Ehrlich to Bill Gates and the WEF, the notion of too many people / too few resources is not new ground.
I'm sure you're right. I remember back to the Paul Ehrlich days. I guess I'm not in the right circles these days. Do they have any suggestions for how to reduce global population?
Elon decrees it. Elon will propel humanity to the stars. Elon is God.
Thank you, both. As a 70 year old my historical perspective is shadowed by on Continent, North America, living and little exposure to Eastern/other models. My life preferences seem to be related to isolation and educational regionalism. I do like to look out into new frameworks. Suggesting Silvīa Tomaskova's works. Shamanism and healing cultures.
Exactly, choices get made which can have long term impact. Look at japan they pivoted in the 1850,s and became the dominant power in Asia in less than 80 years.
Doesn’t Yuval Harari argue in Sapiens that humanity was actually better off on a per capita basis prior to the Agricultural Revolution when we were primarily hunter gatherers? If I recall correctly Harari makes the point that the net effect of the Agricultural Revolution was to increase total food output and allow for the development of much larger societies. But the resulting Malthusian stagnation left the average person no better off compared to the average individual during the hunter gatherer era.
The Industrial Revolution truly was special in allowing us to finally break out of the Malthusian trap. As a non-economist, I’m always amazed by the extent to which people undervalue the importance of technological innovation. Labor is important, but it seems to me that the possibilities of production afforded to labor by technology are what ultimately drive long term growth and prosperity.
In the 1960s, Prof. Alexander Gerschenkron of the Department of Economics at Harvard gave a brilliant graduate course on precisely this topic, the takeoff of modern economic development, its causes and consequences.
“Namely, what is the origin of this vast inequality in the wealth of nations? Why some countries are rich and others are poor, and why much of the inequality that we see across nations today is originated in the past 200 years.”
Geography and luck, mostly. Read Guns, Germs and Steel. This is well-trudged material.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
I just ordered Oded’s book The Journey of Humanity and plan to read it shortly. I read Guns, Germs and Steel a while back and although my recollection of the book is currently a bit hazy, I do recall thinking that although the book was filled with interesting facts, I was a bit skeptical of its thesis that geography played a predominant role in determining the wealth of nations, i.e., the North-South orientation of Africa and the Americas and the subsequent range of geographical latitudes placed those regions at a significant developmental disadvantage relative to Eurasia.
I’m sure geography has played some role in the evolution of nations, but personally I feel like Diamond underemphasizes the importance of cultural and human capital and the necessity of good institutions. China during the Mao era was wretchedly poor, but diaspora Chinese were thriving. As noted by many, during those decades Chinese people seemed to be relatively well-off everywhere except in China. I would argue that China’s rapid advances over the past four decades are the result of institutional reform, not luck or geography.
Sowell and others have written about the disproportionate success of market dominant minorities and immigrant groups who seem to be successful no matter where they migrate. Someone like Richard Bicker will no doubt attribute this to differences in group genetics, but rather than rehash the entire nature versus nurture debate I’m happy to refer to the importance of accumulated cultural and human capital. Creating wealth is hard and it seems to me a bit lacking to suggest that its creation is mostly the result of arbitrary caprice, but I could be wrong about that.
You hit on a really key issue. There should be much broader discussion about why some cultures invariably prosper, and what the common denominators are in their success.
China’s geographical connectivity, which led to political centralization, was beneficial in the Middle Ages, providing the region with an economic and technological head start. But it ended up having an adverse effect on the eve of the Industrial Revolution, when competition and cultural fluidity were instrumental in taking advantage of this new technological paradigm.
Since China has now made the transition to modern growth, given the scale of the Chinese economy, its geographical connectivity, political centralization and social cohesiveness may bring China back to the global forefront of technology and prosperity, provided that the incentives to innovate are maintained. Nevertheless, the lack of sufficient diversity in China may limit this process. In this respect, it would be prudent for China to adopt an education curriculum that would foster critical thinking and thus diversity and cross-fertilization of ideas.
Historically, when the pace of technological progress was relatively low, high geographical and political unity, as existed in China, despite its adverse effect on competition and innovation, allows centralized regimes to govern enormous empires efficiently and foster economic growth by establishing the rule of law and investing in public goods. But when technological progress accelerated, geographical fragmentation as existed in Europe, despite their adverse effect on social cohesiveness, facilitated competition and innovations and contributed to the earlier take-off of Europe.
In fact, in contrast to the Diamond hypothesis, empirical evidence shows unambiguosly that differential timing of the onset of the agriculture across the globe has NO impact on the inequality across countries.
The reason for the failure of the Diamond hypothesis: "The first regions to experience the Neolithic (Agricultural) Revolution enjoyed two major benefits – higher agricultural productivity and a technological head start – placing these first-comers at the forefront of the world’s economic development. However, by the dawn of the sixteenth century, as innovative activities shifted from the rural to the urban environment, the economic importance of the agricultural sector – farming – began its gradual decline, while the human-capital-intensive and technologically-based urban sector began to flourish. An earlier onset of the Neolithic Revolution therefore started to generate conflicting effects."
Ultimately, then, the technological head start was counterbalanced by the relative disadvantage of agricultural specialization, and thus the timing of the Neolithic Revolution had a limited impact on economic development in the modern era. [The Journey of Humanity, p211-212]
Jared Diamond is full of shit. Wealth of nations is only tangentially an accident of geography—it's a result of enhanced IQ due to evolutionary pressures on those "up against it" in inhospitable regions and time periods.
There are plenty of non-cognitive cultural and institutional factors that affect national wealth. Genetically similar groups can vary significantly in terms of economic prosperity, i.e., North Korea versus South Korea today or modern-day China versus China during the Mao era.
At best national IQ is a necessary but far from sufficient criterion for economic prosperity.
Is there any serious thought out there that maybe now there are too many people on the planet? What is the point, existentially speaking, of this expanding population?
More people are better, more ideas more creativity and more growth. As the Marian Tupy & Gale Poole book Superabundance shows more population makes resources cheaper.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59395031
Serious thought? There is no such thing as "too many people on the planet." Unless, of course, you can put forward a process to determine WHICH people are excess as well as what is to be done with them and the process that keeps producing them. Have at it.
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. Ok 20 billion? Really?? That’s good? Be fruitful and multiply. And why is the human race so great? Other animals have suffered greatly from the proliferation of our particular primate.
Are you a human race traitor? Many species of animals and plants have been improved by human agriculture and science, what have other species done for us except provide nutrition, entertainment and companionship. 20 billion people is unlikely under any reasonable scenario but the earth could sustain that and still have other species flourishing.
“Many species of animals and plants have been improved by human agriculture and science”…”what have other species done for us”. You may have the most impoverished, blinkered ethics of anyone I’ve ever read on this site. Sophomoric, too: “Are you a human race traitor?” Humans have been virtually nothing but a brutally indifferent if not actively sadistic disaster to every other sentient (often very very highly-sentient) species on the planet. In scale and intensity of suffering, it’s hard to think of a single worse thing we have done and so blithely continue to do. For every domesticated dog (the companion animal most humans are most sympathetic to) humans have actually cared for and treated well, there are many more who’ve been mass-produced merely to be used and abused. It was very recently an extremely shallow and pointless trend for clueless humans to walk around with rolls of coyote fur collar which never even touched their bodies or insulated a single body part, on grossly overpriced coats, in very temperate cities…often while out walking dogs. Coyotes who were caught in agonizing pain and utter panic in metal leg traps to either bleed out, or die after chewing off limbs in a desperate effort to return to their young, or wait in agony until some trapper finally appeared to shoot or bludgeon them to death. Solely for a very tacky ridiculous decorative trim. And then there are pigs…Unless you have some sort of directly received religious input which you believe gives you the right to simply wave away the sentience of every other intelligent, socially and emotionally complex animal who has evolved to be and experience life similarly to us in so many ways, your only rationalization is “might makes right”. But, sure, why not see how many potential human lives can be forced onto the planet until it buckles under the obvious strain and there is no arable land - or nature, or wildlife left. An endless number of people will make resources forever abundant and cheap…because someone named Marian Tupy says so. Sounds plausible.
I thought chicks were all about creating and sustaining life. Guess I musta missed a memo.
How do you know my chick status? Haha. I don’t know yours either. But generally a dated old fashioned low blow comment.
Double question marks (and exclamation points) = chick. Always.
Is that so?? How interesting!
"...no such thing as 'too many people on the planet.'"
So no possible number I could give would be too many? 700 trillion wouldn't be too many?
"...put forward a process to determine WHICH people are excess..."
There are several nations presently in demographic decline, all without the use of gas chambers, or whatever it is that you're picturing.
700 trillion. Have you considered quality of life under those (impossible) conditions?
Indeed, as more than half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock, I'd say that our present population is already several times larger than it should be.
"Should" implies there is an ideal population. So what is that number and what is it ideal for? What is the goal of restricting or even rooting for population decline toward that ideal? You say "half of all tetrapod biomass is now human or human livestock" as though that explains something. Like we should understand that this stat is a problem. Why is it a problem? I guess I am trying to understand if your concerns are more about the well being of people who might suffer due to overpopulation or of other species and the planet in general.
A mixture of objective and subjective. The objective concern is ecological, and could ultimately be viewed as selfish (i.e. the preservation of just our species). The subjective concerns are a mixture of esthetic (i.e. the preservation of nature) and ethical (the preservation of wildlife). No, I can't convince you that nature and wildlife have intrinsic worth beyond simply keeping humans alive. But I assume that we agree that at least keeping humans safe and healthy is worth something. For that, a lush and robust biosphere is best.
So how would you go about deciding who exactly represents excess "biomass," and just what measures are you prepared to support to achieve the level "it should be" (half of the present population, less if you only go after fatties)? If you're not up for the Soylent Green "solution," how do you propose to deal with those who are NOT on the demographic decline program (hint: look at population projections for Africa, Asia, Europe then speak VERY carefully about your "program.")
If the presumably "green" western democracies tied economic aid to something like rolling birth rates over a period of years to encourage smaller families (and in effect subsidize this), why is this any different to tying financing to the use of renewables? My point is that we have time, and there may be solutions that are beneficial to all. Let's find them.
"...who exactly represents excess 'biomass,'..."
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
This was an interesting discussion. The phenomenon (escape from Malthusianism) he describes is also discussed in Jonah Goldberg's Suicide of the West, but Jonah has an explanation that focuses more on things like the Scottish enlightenment.
Galor's own explanatory theory is interesting, but not entirely persuasive. It leads me to wonder if there are other causes out there that are the *real* cause of the escape, e.g. changes in religious doctrine. (I am not suggesting that, just giving it as an example of an unexamined possible cause.)
Regional forces such as changes in religious doctrine, can be the catalyst that permitted the transition to occur earlier in some regions of the world and not in others.
But the challenge that “The Journey of Humanity” attempts to tackle is to identify: (i) the universal forces – the wheels of change -- that have operated in each region of the world and brought about the transition from stagnation to growth, and (ii) the “local forces” institutions, culture, religion, geography, and human diversity that have governed the differential pace of this transition across the world regions.
The local forces that you have in mind are fully explored in “The Journey of Humanity” but they are specific to each region. They are not the universal forces. For instance, changes in the religion doctrine, institutions, or cultural orientation in Europe is clearly not the cause of the take off in Latin America. Yet the impact of technological acceleration on the demand for human capital and the onset of the fertility decline is a universal force that has been associated with the transition in each region of the world.