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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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/
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?
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.)