The Malthusian Non-Contradiction Dave Gagnon
Posted Dec 12, 2022 Hardly a day goes by when I don't peruse Bob Moriarty's 321GOLD website (and why not - it's way better than the current iteration of the Drudge Report). So, when I saw a certain essay marked as "MUST READ" entitled "The Malthusian Contradiction" by Antony Davies, I read it, and concluded that the author's assertions are the true contradictions here. As a retired Electronics and Quality Engineering professional I feel I have the creds to reply with some degree of authority. So, I contacted Mr. Moriarty and requested the opportunity to point out the fallacies put forth and get it off my chest.
Here goes. I have no problems with the first four paragraphs that set up the essay. It is paragraph five where the contradictions begin. Professor Davies writes, "The Malthusian's errors lay in not understanding resources". I believe it would be more correctly put as - The Malthusian's error was having no foreknowledge of the yet untapped fossil fuel reserves of the planet. He then goes on to undermine the whole premise of his argument by writing: "Specific resources are limited. There's only so much oil. There's only so much land. There's only so much fresh water. But resources, in general, are not limited." Yet if one graphs the rise of human population from, say year 1200, one sees a parabolic rise in the line representing population growth starting at the time of the discovery and utilization of fossil fuels. And, predictably, just as in the case of the famous petri dish example, parabolic rises of this nature inevitably result in rapid declines just as sharp as the rises.
He then continues with what has become known as the technology will save us argument. He admits that oil, land, and water are limited yet with the magical thinking, free lunch argument of nuclear fusion (sometime in the next century) he states continued “explosive” population growth can and should go on indefinitely. He writes, "And so long as there is human ingenuity, there will always be resources". To which I say - tell that to the ghosts of Easter Island. I say the Church of Scientism will not provide in this instance. Perpetual "explosive population growth" is required, in his opinion, to produce the miniscule ratio of geniuses it provides which are needed for our salvation. Unfortunately, the areas of the planet that are currently experiencing said population growth are, for many reasons, unlikely to supply the requisite geniuses. He also asserts that "complex systems are self-correcting". It is my experience that increased complexity results in increased points of failure. Take for example the recent regional power outages in the U.S. caused by a few well-placed high velocity bullets fired into electrical substations or the large break and resultant spillage of the Keystone oil pipeline (cause as yet undetermined) this past week and its instantaneous effect on the price of oil. But the real jewel comes in his final sentence, "When Malthusians point to explosive population growth, they think they are identifying a problem. They are actually identifying the solution". This conclusion demonstrates the real contradiction, not of just tortured logic, but deep into the realms of cognitive dissonance.
People are so polarized in opinion these days that I would not be surprised if readers find my counter arguments to professor Davies' "The Malthusian Contradiction" as an advocacy of 'depopulation'. Nothing could be further from the truth, but advocating for more “explosive population growth” seems to me to satisfy Einstein’s definition of insanity. I also find that arguments for depopulation such as ‘man-made’ climate change and the purported miracle of 'green energy' are merely ruses to justify top-down control to the ignorant. The arrogance to think that climate change is caused by, and can be solved by, man is beyond the pale. Take a look at this article from another great website, Zero Hedge, about the new discovery of the lush forests and wild life that existed in now arctic Greenland. No fossil fuels were in use back then. As far as 'Green Energy' goes anybody with a firm and honest degree of knowledge regarding electronics and manufacturing knows that continued development along the current lines will only deplete dwindling resources and not come near providing Return on Investment. Explosive population growth will self-correct, just not in the manner that Davies envisions. You stand forewarned. ### Dave Gagnon
Clinton, CT 321gold Ltd
|
