pull down to refresh
I remember "Overpopulation" scaring the tar out of me in 7th Grade when I first heard about Thomas Malthus. It's one of those ideas that makes complete sense at surface level (perfect for the 13-year-old mind), but unravels in the details. I eventually outgrew that paranoia, and now I'd say human energy is our most valued "resource." We need more, not less, and we have space for them to spare.
Which begs the question: Do overpopulationists think like 13-year-olds? 🤔
Do overpopulationists think like 13-year-olds?
Basically, yes. They're smart enough to follow an argument through to a conclusion, but not smart or experienced enough to see the obvious flaws.
Btw, Malthus kind of gets a bad rap. I think his hypothesis was totally reasonable to entertain at the time. History proved it wrong for fairly unforeseeable reasons.
Until they aren't @Undisciplined
deleted by author
The idea of a sweet spot is interesting with this hypothesis, too.
There's an idea called "Cut flower ethics" (or something like that). It refers to how a lot of norms, morals, and institutions can persist for a while after the underlying belief system has faded.
It might be that economic growth thrived in a morally, but not religiously, Christian environment.
deleted by author
The over-populationists have pretty much been the wrongest people ever.
This transition to investing more resources per child, though, does seem to be an important part of prosperity gains. I strongly doubt that holds true below replacement level, since the stronger relationship is more minds = more wealth.
I'm also a big fan of this kind of work, even when I disagree with the conclusions. We don't understand The Great Divergence very well yet, but religion is likely part of the story.