Renewable Resource
Ex-Malthusian Attacks Neo-Malthusian Shibboleths
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    Do read the whole thing! In addition to demolishing the Malthusian argument, it includes this gem, “It is striking, for example, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change’s recent forecast that temperatures would rise by 3.7 to 4.8
    degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels by 2100 was based on
    several assumptions: little technological change, an end to the 50-year
    fall in population growth rates, a tripling (only) of per capita income
    and not much improvement in the energy efficiency of the economy.
    Basically, that would mean a world much like today’s but with lots more
    people burning lots more coal and oil, leading to an increase in
    emissions. Most economists expect a five- or tenfold increase in income,
    huge changes in technology and an end to population growth by 2100: not
    so many more people needing much less carbon.” In other words, the report makes the assumptions necessary to produce the desired result.

  • Jim__L

    Why in the world do they assume that this one planet is all we get? We demonstrated fifty years ago that our technology puts more than that within our reach.

    • B-Sabre

      Because, obviously 1) we should dismantle the polluting space programs (I remember seeing complaints about how much greenhouse gas Branson’s Virgin Galactic launch system would introduce into the atmosphere) and use the funds to fight global climate change, and 2) humans shouldn’t be allowed to “contaminate” the pristine “environments” of the other planets. Because humans are icky.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.